The Ball of Tyranny is Gathering Downhill Speed

This post is about stories that — if you are looking — are popping up at an alarming rate:

FUNDAMENTALS OF NATURAL LAW: U.S. Government Openly Violating Natural Law

I almost titled this one under “Tyranny in the Headlines,” because every story listed in this post represents an open act of tyranny.  However, since these stories all illustrate clear violations of natural law, I chose to use them to illustrate how the government violates natural law and the chaos that naturally results.  With that said, here are the principles of natural law and the stories showing the U.S. government in open violation of these principles:

Looking to nature, we notice that animals have the natural right to raise and defend their children.  If you doubt this, go try to play with a mother bears cubs and see how well that works out for you.  Or try it with a goose and her goslings and see if the result is any different.  That parents have a natural right to raise and protect their offspring is self-evident to all but those who wish to alter these natural laws.  And this is what these stories represent: a government attempt to alter the natural order of things by taking away parental rights:

Read the rest…

11 thoughts on “The Ball of Tyranny is Gathering Downhill Speed

  1. The Government…our elected officials….our “represntatives”….are doing absolutely NOTHING about it !

    Lock-step and in unison the Democrat Redistributive Left and the GOP Leadership simply ignore the destruction of the Constituin and our Bill of Rights…..and by doing so seem to being saying “Kiss your Life, Liberty and Private property rights goodbye……because you are NOT Created equal under God and are endowed with NOTHING but what washington decides you are !!! ”

    This video by KORN seems to sum up the Control and fscist insanity that has taken over in the US…..with it’s mirror in Putin and the Ukraine…….. Sometimes ART can say it loud and Clear.

  2. Joe,

    On a loosely related note, what do you think of the work of John Rawls? The author of my ethics text seems to have a rather large hard on for Rawls, citing him and appealing to his reasoning several times throughout the text. Specifically, my exposure to him has been on the subject of ethical contractarianism. I haven’t really warmed up to his theories (I think I’m beginning to pick up on a progressive odor somewhere underneath all these layers), but this unit of the text has got me thinking about natural law and social contract and where his theories fall on the spectrum. I though I would pick the minds of some of my informed friend on this philosophical matter. Hopefully CDE will see this reply and have some commentary to add to this inquiry as well.

    • fascisti,

      Sorry, I’d have to read up on him. Nothing is coming to mind at the moment. But then, I have been trying to claw my way out from under an avalanche of work this past week or so and my brain may be a bit on the fried side (sorry).

    • Rawls has been the “darling” of the Academic Literati for many decades. I had to read him many moons ago.

      Liberal to the core…..Harvard guy I believe. The essence as far as I remember is (was ) his dependence of :”Fair” Justice. He devised a whole philosophy around and argumentation of “Determining” what that “Fair Justice” would be……. Assuming of course that his premise was the correct one to take…. ie, that ‘Ole Dependence upon “fair”.

      Anyway …. I ain’t Joe or CDE …. But for what it’s worth there’s my recollection. Keep in mind though that my introduction to Rawls was through a Prof who had been taught by Columbia Marxists and New School types in NYC…..and whose research area was Marx and Freud….. BUT nevertheless was what some today would call a cross between a Conservative and a Jeffersonian Liberal…… A RARE breed I know !!! ……… He wasn’t impressed by Rawls nor Freud nor Marx…. so…..

      • Forgive me, Don! You are most certainly a learned friend. Your input is certainly welcome. Thanks for sharing.

        I have noticed an unusual amount of adoration for Rawls in this text. This made me curious, as the author speaks of Locke as if he were an amateur philosopher; so I did some internet research on Rawls and found that his “darling” status seems to be the consensus. I’ve gotten to the point where I’m really leary about what I read online, as I have come to question the credibility of a great deal of the internet’s many authors. Consequently, I thought I would ask here, as I have found that the content is more sound and substantial that what I have found at other places.

        • fascisti,

          We haven’t known a philosopher on Locke’s level since. These ‘want-to-bes’ are just crediting themselves and their darlings with being something they’re not. Sort of like these rappers that re-vamp a classic, throw in some new words and call it a ‘new’ song and expect awards. They just want to accolades without having to actually do any work. Like I said, from what little I’ve heard, it sounds like Rawls just put a new spin on Mill, who is also an over-rated philosopher or second rate contributions.

      • Don,

        If what you say is true — and I have no reason to believe otherwise — then it sounds like Rawls just re-vamped John Stuart Mill. All he did was assign different words and terms. In which case, his work would be open to the same criticisms making it just as useless as Mill’s.

Talk Amongst Yourselves:

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.