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taught you can put money into an economy (even if you print it) to provide goods and services as long as that money is withdrawn again to prevent massive inflation.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

For the discussion to progress we need to define more comprehensively what the term "natural law" means.

Where_is_reason defines it as "everything comes from something and nothing comes from nothing". Many people would have quite different definitions of "natural law".

Therefore, I think maybe it's necessary to come to an agreement on what natural law means.

One way would be for everyone to agree with the already given definition, and proceed with the discussion on that basis.

Another way would be to discuss the various definitions of "natural law", come to an agreed definition, and proceed with the discussion on that basis.

What exactly do you mean by 'natural'? Do you mean "occuring in nature", "common in nature" or "what I think is natural"? What people usually think is 'natural', is often only what they think is 'normal' or the most common.

Or do you consider a 'Natural Law' something akin to Scientific Laws, like the Laws of Therodynamics? In which case, some are stronger than others. Some of these laws are actually impossible to break, some are mere guidelines or principles that can be easily broken under certain circumstances and still not be 'unnatural'.

The idea that 'money' is 'matter' is erroneous, it is an agreed unit of shared value and as such can be conjured by any two or more parties. It is a form of information. As such, material money is only a representation, a way of keeping account. Anything can represent money, shells, rocks, small metal disks, slips of paper, etc.

Information can certainly be conjured from 'nothing'.

The Main Issue:

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. I propose that more strength to real evidence provides a worthy control over government power that acts to protect the populace.

We can't include "natural law" as first priority in all democratic constitutions unless there's agreement on what "natural law" actually means.

We need an agreed definition here, for the discussion to progress to the next level.

Some notes:

(1) I see Natural Law as being best embodied in scientific laws which are in turn derived from scientific endeavour and thus are subject to evidence. This has its own limitations (such as when scientific evidence is minimised or manipulated by the use of power) but it is a starting point.

(2) Information is derived at a minimum from mental labour; it does not come from nothing. It can, however, when spread widely have a very small per unit cost factor.

(3) I am not taking about survival of the fittest or doing without any human laws. Human laws better harmonised with natural laws would however be useful.

(4) While humans might decide money into existence (mental effort) this does not automatically make the decision legitimate in terms of scientific laws. The claim on effort and value must be paid for (in energy terms at a minimum) and it will be one way or the other.

(5) If money is derived from productive labour and value creation then it is not created from nothing.

(6) If money is meant to be derived from future productive labour and value creation then the question arises as to whether is does come from productive labour and value creation (in that future). Furthermore, there is the question of whether there should be legitimate limits on the quantity of future claims on productive labour and value creation. There is also the issue of current claims and their dilution by created future claims created now.

quote/Where_is_reason<<The..Main/Issue:,,is-about..including..Natural-Law/as..first-priority..in-all..democratic-constitutions>>

i/can agree..to disagree...

i see/it..as an..athiestic/survivalist/licence
where the..survival..of the-fittest..rules..
lords..it..over the/less.clever[less organised]..
or really/rather..much/like..we have now

you propose..natural-law..in all..demon-auto-cratic/institutions..<<..so that/real evidence..gains..a stronger/position..over manipulation/of..thought.>>

clearly..there-is..an under-lying..issue/here
real-evidence?...as/to..who planned 911..for egsample?

[not just..that/many...died..
for vile..to..thrive?]

or real-evidence..of bankers..to hold
the..exclusive-franchise..over..the availabiluity/
costs/of..credit creation..[that..bankers-stole..from govt]...
and/the-people..and by-which/the..elites..rule/it..over governance

truth like..why/we..went to war..against a..cia/stooge..
[ok both..bin larden..and sad-man/insane were..of/..those-type]..
just to have..a/religious-war..for..israel..
by usa...to..prepare/for iran?

and/maybe acces..the..drugs/for the/secret..cia..rendition/delivery-service...and..acces the..3 trillion of new wealth..in/minerals..in afganastan...while doling-out..big-money to..black-guard-contracters?

yeah..i wish..the truth..was better/known..too
but/really..natural-law..is-what..we got..allready

<<I propose/that..more..strength..>>

stength..?
[might is/right...has..its..spiritual-cost]
in heaven/hell...when..this..life-term..is done

but i/see..im taking..strength...in-correctly
what your..seeking is/a..remedy/cure...<<to/wards..real-evidence>...

in the hope/it..<<provides..a worthy/control..over government-power..that acts..to protect..the populace.>>

with/which..i can agree..a need for...
but/not..an achievable-reality..anytime..soon

your missing...what/this..reality is/for

see..those cast..from/heaven...and..from hell
all come/here..to be given..their own..life-sentance

and for/other..reasons...
all directly related..to CHOICE
ie..chosing to..reject/the-light/love/logic

or..the darness[hell]
for the..grey-area...inbetween..[ear-th]
for.some pre-concieved ..self-advantage...or test
and conciously..chosing..the more..'difficult'-option,..

where all..we/need..do/chose..is..[love..of neighbour]

but we/are..what we-are
ie eternal/spirits..evolving

via..a life-term...here...
to help-us chose..how and where..we chose/to spend eternity...
see/there..is..natural-justice..and natural/laws..like karma

not just/the..material/theoretical-laws..of this..material-reality
between-usall..we may get-it..right..so if/we..work..on/it..together?



jockey/quote..<<We can't..include.."natural law"..as first/priority..in all..democratic/constitutions..unless there's..agreement on/what.."natural law"..actually/means.>>

<<We/need..an agreed..definition..here>>

so here/goes...we/are..agreed..
that greed..is destructive to others

thus naturally...greed must-be controled..
preferably..by self-controle..and if/not by govt..or law

mans inherant/nature..is nurture
thus naturally..govt should-be..doing the nurture
where men..[and woe-man]..inevitable fail

we have the/law..of survival..or..the/law of karma..

thus naturally
everything..has its burden..
as well as advantage..[see rule one]

i was going..to mention...life..after life
for the..true..law/reveals..death..is not dead
as jesus..came to reveal/vali-date..by rising/from..the dead

next/..law..that is..regarded/as natural..
is that there/is..a god and that god..is good..
thus any claiming..to act on behalf of god..
[yet/not doing..good-works...]

gets rule two...karma..[instant karma..
for blaspheming gods/..good/name..in vain]

there are..yet/more..natural-laws
that reveal..truth/good..etc

but why..should/we..have all/the..fun?

When I put the 'nothing' in quotation marks, I did of course mean that information can come from non-information. Energy can be transformed, the very act of will that can create 'money' is all the energy required.

I certainly have a problem with scientific 'laws' being the basis for democratic constitutions as most of these deal with empirical observations of physical phenomena (i.e. physics and chemistry) and are not a good basis for underpinning a social construct within a biological system. In fact, in biology I think you would be very hard pressed to find an empirical 'Law' that holds generally true (except for the abovementioned 'physical'-type laws). 'Laws' in science are generalised observations that should hold true under most circumstances, they generally do not present any sort of understanding or basis for further action or future experimentation. That is done by 'theory'.

Thus 'Natural Law' for a political system sounds to me like complete bunkum.

For what other social phenomena do you plan to use 'Natural Law' as the basis? Other than money 'creation', that is.

Should we perhaps use it for crime and punishment or dispute resolution perhaps? Maybe we can use the Ideal Gas Law to allow everyone equal media time?

I am sure that natural law is well established and strong enough to defend itself without requiring any help from our feeble legislators.

What Bugsy said;
Also, there is absolutely no 'money being created out of nothing' by government in any deviation of standard transactions (mathematics arguably being another natural and inalienable law).
1- Money borrowed leaves a vacuum, which is filled by refunding, interest repayments, selling, lending something else- hence price tags substantiate the vacuum
2- Money taxed is an exchange of services for pay. You however, would most definitely have an argument if the government privatized all sectors it was previously responsible for, and is thus taking money for nothing, if that is what you are implying.
3- Money printed or minted is basically 'growing' it from raw materials, in exactly the same way plants arguably do. That in itself is perfectly natural, and a highly scientific concept of converting and combining molecules. The act of introducing newly printed money into the economy balances supply, demand and monetary value and inflation considerations.

In short, there is simply nothing 'unscientific' about the way governments are acting (except in science, education and research policy).
But to base social governance on base logic laws crudely tied to conduct is absurd; If we were to stop government borrowing or taxation, all sectors of infrastructure would stop working. If the government stopped minting, our supply of hard money would run out, leaving more impoverished, and more people trading in virtual currency and credit (which is more 'nothing').

Definitely a stimulating discussion, though a bit easy to measure consequentially.

Some more notes

(7) Scientific laws are considered laws only if it seems they cannot be confounded by contradictory evidence after through testing. Scientific principles on the other hand work in most associated contexts (but not always) or are too new to have been properly tested. Theories are at an even earlier stage than principles and are even less certain. If a scientific law were found to be untrue then it ceases to be a scientific law.

(8) Scientifically supported “Natural Laws” may change as science changes, mostly in terms of growth of knowledge. Thus, no constitution should codify any supposed list of scientifically supported natural laws. Rather the primacy of scientifically supported natural law is codified.

(9) You do not legislate natural law (as in all possible examples of or even important examples of), rather you should conform legislation (and indeed all governance processes) to the best current scienfic understanding of natural law.

(10) Bunkum is nonsense; empty or insincere talk. Lack of adherence to natural law in a political system is usually facilitated and characterised by bunkum.

(11) Whether by misunderstanding or deliberate attempts to develop straw-man arguments the main point is being largely ignored. This is disappointing but not surprising. I will not name those doing so; I merely point readers to the discussion thus far and yet again suggest contributors address the primary issue.

(12) Contributors have mentioned money derived from taxes (not something from nothing). Contributors have thus suggested this is a non-issue and they are largely correct unless too much taxation occurs and the productivity that the taxes rely upon is destroyed. This is a natural law issue with many analogous examples existing in science.

The notes continue

(13) Other contributors have mentioned debt when future value creation is brought forward in time. Even here natural law is obviously relevant. What happens if there is a not sufficient future value creation? What happens is there is too much debt – debt beyond the limits of future value creation? Does the debt’s use apply to producing future value creation or does it inhibit or destroy future value creation? Does the quantity of debt induce such levels of new claims on value that current money (claims on value) rapidly looses value (inflation)? Where does the money come from that is leant out (does it pre-exist, is it created by the miracle of fractional reserve banking, in what proportions)? Obviously natural law is important to all such considerations.

(14) Then there is the pure money from nothing method. A government (let us suppose the USA government) gains money from say a reserve bank in exchange for bonds. Thus, is seems a debt is created. The catch is that the reserve bank had no money. They merely created it. Thus no debt as we would normally understand debt was created (not even a fractional reserve debt). Consequences – (1) pressures for inflation and hence devaluation of current money, (2) all the taxpayers of the nation in question must pay back (through the government bond) the created money plus interest (a drain on their future productivity and value creation). Whether contributors agree or disagree with such practices, do they seriously suggest that natural law is not an important consideration is this process?

(15) As for coins, notes, cheques, bank accounts and so on; these are merely currency or symbols that represent money.

Enough for today ...

The primacy of things that can occur in nature is taken as a given. It's very existence, ipso facto, means that it can exist and thus already conforms to 'Natural Law', by our scientific understanding of it.

I think you have a misapprehension as to what a scientific law is, and its relationship to a theory, or a principle. Scientific laws are empirical repeatable observations. They are not directly interchangeable with theories or principles. Similarly, principles are not just very strong theories. They all have different meanings, they are not points on a sliding scale.

I think it's a bit silly to actually recognise something like the Law of Gravity as having primacy over our political systems.

quote/where-is/reason..<<13)..Other/contributors..have-mentioned..debt..when future/value..creation is brought/forward..in time...Even-here..natural/law..is obviously-relevant.>>usually..i would agree

but..if by natural/
we include..human-nature[at it best/not worse]
its still/only a means/way to do the right-thing

<<What/happens..if there-is..a not sufficient/future-value..creation?>>...they simply raise..the rate of inflation..to inflate the value..of the asset[like they currently/do[in fiat/values]

see..in gold/silver..assets stay/much..the same
its only/in their..construct...fiat-paper..values..they/do their trickery...every-day..the money is worth-less

[meaning the/asset..will cost/more...[fiat..$'s..tomorrow]

<<What happens/is..there is too/much..debt/debt beyond..the/limits of future-value/creation?>>there-are..those with low/intrest..loans..
and those/with..high-intrest...debt-obligations

when..limited liability/defaults..at cents to the dollar
the poor[fully liable..real-people]..just/get..higher burden...
increased prices...inflation[of/money supply]..

[ie..deflating..the value/of their..wage/buying-power

Does the..debt’s/use..apply to producing/future-value..creation>>is a key question..obviously..simply taking-over..control..of current assets...is a dangerous/end-game

prices..must/increase...to get the same[or worse..service]..as what was before...debt-free..now-is..loaded/with..debt/obligations..it should scream/danger

<<or does-it..inhibit..or destroy..future/value..creation?>>
the more that goes direct..to bankers
the less to circulate,..in the economy

<<Does the/quantity..of debt..induce such/levels..of new claims on value..that current-money..(claims on value)..rapidly looses/value>>yes egsactly

before wee had an asset[say the rail-way..or elerctric..supply-line..or water/damms etc...that was relitivly debt-free[ok till govt started/playing games..demanding the raise-funds

<<(inflation)?..no inflation..comes when the price..of services..gop through the roof[like the current electicity/water/transport..price-spike

just wait..till-all/them..go through the system
those in the know will fix their long-term debt
and the poor cop the deflation of wages..
and inflatioon of price..for everything else

<<Where does/the money..come from..that/is..leant out>>there is the neat/trick

see our promise/to re-pay..creates..the value
part of every/loan-documernt..says you allready..got..the loan
but cl;early..the value..wasnt there...THEY REALLY DIDNT LEND US ANYTHING
our promise to repay..it created..it via the fed reserve..entering a debt/obligation..onto their books

<<(does it pre-exist>>.NO

<<is/it created..by the miracle..of fractional..reserve-banking,>>>only in part...see the bank...needs to buy..notes*..at 7 cents each..that they pay/negligable intrst..upon[rent..;till they return..the note

<<in what proportions)?>>
3 quadrillion as/near-as..any can tell
[ok..thats..the/debt]..

meaning..
some-one..got..
the value-of..it

[pre-inflation]

Who defines Natural Law? Many are willing to spout natural law when it comes to the nature of man but sit in judgement of others when clearly their view of the natural law does not apply.

If we were to make laws about homosexuality (which we have done) based on a set of biased interpretation of natural law despite the 'evidence' that homosexuals are born 'naturally' and live among us. Natural Law is a nebulous area.

Look at the chaos that descended with climate change and scientific evidence and modelling was used on both sides of the debate.

The Natural Law as you put it is not always clear cut and economics is not science but based more on ideology and beliefs about human nature - which is highly subjective, not evidence based.

This has been a fascinating discussion stemming from the original post. However, most of the discussion ignores the point that natural (material) forces always determine what happens in the operation of systems made up of materials. Our science has defined only some of the natural laws that operate. The laws of thermodynamics, motion, gravity are well known. Specialists in various fields have enunciated other laws that identify how natural forces act but that does not mean that humans have understanding of all aspects of how natural forces have acted during evolution.
Information is not subject to these natural forces as it is intangible. It does, however, have a major impact on what natural forces are brought into play. Those natural forces determine what is possible. Information contributes to the decisions on what possibilities are activated.

“The Natural Law as you put it is not always clear cut and economics is not science but based more on ideology and beliefs about human nature - which is highly subjective, not evidence based” (pelican).

Yes, exactly.

”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. I propose that more strength to real evidence provides a worthy control over government power that acts to protect the populace” (Where_is_reason).

That is, the issue is not about defining natural law (it is not the answer but the question if you like) but about providing the populace an avenue to monitor government action. It is a debate and a scientific evidence finding proposition. It is also an avenue of elevated control over government manipulation of thought.

PS. Trying to define Natural Law in anything other than evidence based terms defeats the purpose – this is why I have emphasised the scientific method in other posts.

I think you are confusing the abstract with the material. If one cannot discern between what is abstract and what is material, you are not in the realms of science.

I see you only seem to want to apply the Laws of Thermodynamics to economics.

I would really like to see an example that does not include economics applied to your proposition.

Please tell me how this 'natural law' will somehow apply to something else, lets say foreign relations, or you pick one, anything but economics.

@Where-is-reason...you may want to reconsider your premise, or re-word it. What you are describing also, though have not mentioned it, is the concept of credit, for that too is the creation of something from nothing...the spending of monies that have not been earned yet. So in effect, you would like to see people pay cash for their houses and cars, and burn their credit cards.

I agree we live in a false economy, but we can only dream about the banks and governments changing this concept.

Why didn't you say so before, Where_is_reason?

>>...the issue is not about defining natural law (it is not the answer but the question if you like) but about providing the populace an avenue to monitor government action. It is a debate and a scientific evidence finding proposition. It is also an avenue of elevated control over government manipulation of thought.<<

If I understand you correctly, we have abandoned the concept of natural law, because we don't have a definition for it.

It is, after all, not possible to include a "question, if you like", within another question, as you did in your opening post:

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

You obviously cannot substitute your above explanation for the term "natural law".

It would come out something like this:

"Why is there not primacy for a debate and a scientific evidence finding proposition, and an avenue of elevated control over government manipulation of thought, in all democratic constitutions?"

What, then are we left with?

I get the overwhelming feeling that you are simply trying to manufacture an avenue for an Austrian School monologue. You know, debt is bad, fiat money is bad, fractional reserve banking is evil, all that guff.

Am I right? It would certainly explain this contribution of yours:

>>Where does the money come from that is leant out (does it pre-exist, is it created by the miracle of fractional reserve banking, in what proportions)? Obviously natural law is important to all such considerations.<<

Obviously it is not, since “natural law” so far evades definition.

But the give-away is your description of fractional reserve banking.

It is not a miracle. You simply don't understand it, that's all.

So, where would you like to go from here?

Noting down the line ….

Thanks everyone for the contributions. I look hopefully forward to more.

(16) I do not represent any particular school of thought. I particularly do not represent the Austrian school (as Pericles brings up).

(17) The miracle of fractional reserve banking. In the context of other’s contributions on debt the use of the word “miracle” was meant to provoke thought. I hope it does. Mere suggestions of lack of knowledge (Pericles) seem a little short-sighted.

(19) "Why is there not primacy for a debate and a scientific evidence finding proposition, and an avenue of elevated control over government manipulation of thought, in all democratic constitutions?" (Pericles). This is a good attempt to put it together.

(20) Why is there not primacy in all democratic constitutions for the Laws of Nature as defined by scientific evidence? Debate and scientific evidence finding would very probably be the effect of such an idea. I would hope so. It might be interesting to discuss the nature and effect of such debate and scientific evidence finding.

I'm still not certain what you expect from this thread, Where_is_reason. It seems to be going round in circles.

The problem seems to be that you have introduced the concept of "Natural Law" into a discussion, but no-one has a clear idea where it starts or stops.

Least of all you. You are a little contradictory, you have to admit.

>>[on the "creation of money"] 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<<

Then you wander off into some mysterious world of your own invention...

>>Then there is the pure money from nothing method. A government (let us suppose the USA government) gains money from say a reserve bank in exchange for bonds. Thus, is seems a debt is created. The catch is that the reserve bank had no money. They merely created it. Thus no debt as we would normally understand debt was created<<

Of course debt was created. At the same time that money was "created. It was the debt that caused the money to come into being. How is that not "debt as we would normally understand debt"?

Most frustrating. And what is its relevance to "Natural Law"?

So let's have a little clarity.

When you talk about "Natural Law", does it have anything to do with money, debt, the fractional reserve process etc.? If so, what?

Then we might have something to talk about.

For Pericles …

I mostly agree that the thread has tended to go around in circles.

The limits of Natural Law are the same as the limits of science. Where does science start and stop?

I have indeed answered some issues related to money that I found and still find off topic. I have indeed suggested that it might be better to ignore the money aspect or delay its discussion till later. I still suggest this. It is a little saddening that so few have followed this suggestion.

Suggestions that I have wandered off into some mysterious world of my own invention seem disingenuous.

As for the creation of money and debt and its relation to Natural Law as defined by science and scientific research, it would seem that “those who will not see can never be shown” is my best reply.

If some will not see any relevance for Natural Law as defined by science and scientific research related to money and debt, then they cannot be shown (although with a little imagination they might work it out for themselves). I for one do not live in a world where money and debt have no influence on the natural world or where money and debt cannot be measured and studied using the scientific method. (I might, however, live in a world where some would rather evidentiary science stay out of money, economics, and debt).

Now, does anyone want to address the main issue?

The main issue is about including Natural Law (as defined by science and scientific evidence) as first priority in all democratic constitutions so that real evidence gains a stronger position over manipulation of thought. I propose that more strength to real evidence provides a worthy control over government power that acts to protect the populace.

Why is there not primacy in all democratic constitutions for the Laws of Nature as defined by scientific evidence? Debate and scientific evidence finding would very probably be the effect of such an idea. It might be interesting to discuss the nature and effect of such debate and scientific evidence finding.

You're kidding yourself, Where_is_reason.

>>I have indeed answered some issues related to money that I found and still find off topic.<<

Answered? I don't think so. You are still having problems coming to grips with the questions.

And off topic? That's a joke.

You introduced money into the discussion yourself. Right off the bat. You keep re-introducing it. And it appears to be the only aspect of the overall topic that can be rationalized.

>>Suggestions that I have wandered off into some mysterious world of my own invention seem disingenuous.<<

Hardly.

The mysterious world referred to your discourse on "the pure money from nothing method". Which is more along the lines of a "pure figment of your imagination".

As I pointed out to you

>>As for the creation of money and debt and its relation to Natural Law as defined by science and scientific research, it would seem that “those who will not see can never be shown” is my best reply.<<

Complete and utter cop-out.

If you cannot justify your pontifications, you might at least have the honesty to say so, instead of hiding behind a pompous attempt at a put-down.

>>I propose that more strength to real evidence provides a worthy control over government power that acts to protect the populace<<

In order to encourage debate on this theme, perhaps it would be smart to provide evidence - sorry, "real evidence" - that this might alter the status quo.

Or is that simply one of your assumptions? Like the fact that money is being created without incurring debt.

"If you cannot justify your pontifications, you might at least have the honesty to say so, instead of hiding behind a pompous attempt at a put-down" (Pericles).

Really, Perciles, who is putting who down? I will refrain from listing the instances in your prior posted comments. I will also refrain from listing the instances where you have misrepresented my words (perhaps due to mere communication problems).

As for my (offending to you) statement on Thursday, 23 September 2010 12:40:27 PM about those who 'will not see can never be show', I suggest you refer to the paragraph that follows it.

It would take a great deal more than that to offend me, Where_is_reason.

>>As for my (offending to you) statement on Thursday, 23 September 2010 12:40:27 PM about those who 'will not see can never be show', I suggest you refer to the paragraph that follows it.<<

Let's have a look.

>>If some will not see any relevance for Natural Law as defined by science and scientific research related to money and debt, then they cannot be shown (although with a little imagination they might work it out for themselves).<<

That doesn't change much, does it.

You still seem to think that there is something miraculous in fractional reserve banking.

>>Where does the money come from that is leant out (does it pre-exist, is it created by the miracle of fractional reserve banking, in what proportions)?<<

The answers to these questions lie in the application of simple mathematics. Which I assume conform to your definition of Natural Law.

>>The limits of Natural Law are the same as the limits of science. Where does science start and stop?<<

Science starts when you can consistently achieve the same results from the same inputs. It ends when you cannot.

Unfortunately, this ensures that Natural Law will fall at the first hurdle if it is ever used as the basis of legislation "in all democratic constitutions".

For example, not one law passed by parliament, ever, has consistently and without fail produced exactly the results it set out to achieve, and only the results it set out to achieve. That's because it involves people. And people are less likely to conform to scientific predictability than will quadratic equations.

But perhaps you had another angle in mind?

Pericles, please understand that a paragraph is not a sentence.

“If some will not see any relevance for Natural Law as defined by science and scientific research related to money and debt, then they cannot be shown (although with a little imagination they might work it out for themselves). I for one do not live in a world where money and debt have no influence on the natural world or where money and debt cannot be measured and studied using the scientific method. (I might, however, live in a world where some would rather evidentiary science stay out of money, economics, and debt)” (Where_is_reason).

I am guessing you read the rest of the paragraph as your latest post (Thursday, 23 September 2010 6:36:39 PM) seems to have started (very slightly) to consider the main issue I have been suggesting all along.

You seem to develop a straw man idea of science being invoked (and coming to a singular common conclusion) before any legislation can be developed or passed.

Certainly, I would have legislators consider scientific findings related to their legislation before legislating and to hence pass laws that make sense scientifically; however, I suspect the main initial usefulness (until legislators learn) will be in court action after legislation has been passed. That is, in finding legislation unconstitutional because its stated purpose does not make sense based on the science. Where there is sufficient scientific doubt then there is no recourse to the proposed Natural Law/Scientific Law concept. Where there is no doubt then the proposed Natural Law/Scientific Law has priority. The real question would then be the level of doubt considered sufficient in each context under consideration. Here other principles may be important.

Also, in the question of the stated purpose of legislation and whether the legislation makes sense scientifically, it is noted that legislators have the option of reducing rhetoric and keeping closer to the scientifically justifiable facts in their stated purposes.

I am looking forward to discussion.

I am still having difficulty understanding how to move this discussion forward, Where_is_reason.

>>Certainly, I would have legislators consider scientific findings related to their legislation before legislating and to hence pass laws that make sense scientifically<<

Presumably, you are suggesting that this is not presently the case. Do you have examples of laws that currently don't meet these requirements that we could work with? It would certainly assist in understanding where you can see the need for "Natural Law" to be involved.

>>I suspect the main initial usefulness... will be in court action after legislation has been passed. That is, in finding legislation unconstitutional because its stated purpose does not make sense based on the science.<<

Unconstitutional?

Before this could occur, you would need to have some form of "Natural Law" provision added to our constitution. That might be somewhat challenging. Do you have a form of words in mind?

If you do, it would certainly help clarify the "Natural Law/Scientific Law concept" that you refer to.

Without which I feel unable to comment further.