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.