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?