way ahead of you, its amateurish rhetoric.
edit: ok thats a little unfair, he didnt have the benefit of the last coupla hundred years of political philosophy to lean on, but it is mostly rhetoric. the few places where he attempts to make arguments have some interesting ideas but he would be ripped apart by a modern political philosophy undergraduate. even for his day its rather sloppy work.
Wow RT for a man whose intellect I respect this surprises me . Blackstone‘s treatise on 1689 English Declaration of Right . "the natural right of resistance" and self-preservation,‖ which was effectuated
by "the right of having and using arms for self-preservation and defence." Natural Law as a legal term is based on 12th century canon law
"Natural law is common to all nations because it exists everywhere through
natural instinct, not because of any enactment. It includes the union of
men and women, the succession and rearing of children, the identical
liberty of all in the acquisition of those things, which I omit, which are
taken from the earth or at sea, the return of a thing deposited or of money
entrusted, and the repelling of violence by force. This, and anything
similar, is never regarded as unjust but is held to be natural and
equitable" While not termed natural law . This right was recognized by the Romans as well . I can think of nothing more "Natural" then the right to self defense . Ever see a cornered bear or mountain lion ? The right to self defense they display comes from nature and nature alone .<over simplification I know it is not intended for you> It is universally recognized . Even some of the less thoughtful people participating in this thread would expect nothing less . Every living thing tries to protect itself . Living organisms that can . Universally use violence to do so . Is that not nature at work ?
