Alexander Knox

There is a diversity of opinion over the root source of our Common Law rights. Some say the mere fact that we are a living, cognisant, human being gives us the rights that we have. Some say that it is natural law, the way of nature and relate this to such entities as the earth mother and sky father, or gaia, or many other deities of land, sea, air, water and fire, or, they deny any god-like influence and say its simply evolution that enabled those rights. So let’s look at nature and unwrap the concept of natural law.

Encyclopaedia Britannica states:
natural law, in philosophy, system of right or justice held to be common to all humans and derived from nature rather than from the rules of society, or positive law.

“There have been several disagreements over the meaning of natural law and its relation to positive law. Aristotle (384–322 BC) held that what was “just by nature” was not always the same as what was “just by law,” that there was a natural justice valid everywhere with the same force and “not existing by people’s thinking this or that,” and that appeal could be made to it from positive law. However, he drew his examples of natural law primarily from his observation of the Greeks in their city-states, who subordinated women to men, slaves to citizens, and “barbarians” to Hellenes. In contrast, the Stoics conceived of an entirely egalitarian law of nature in conformity with the logos (reason) inherent in the human mind.”

Then, over the centuries the concept of natural law has changed markedly with each new generation of philosophers and changes in societal behaviour. The flexibility in the understanding and changes to the definition of natural law over the centuries since Aristotle automatically make it an unreliable basis for exercise of law in the constraints or permissions given to the living being.
It is said that human beings have the following rights under natural law: The right to life, health, liberty, food, water, a place to live, material possessions and freedom of travel. So vociferous were the arguments for and against through from the 17th century right up to today, that elements of natural law proved hard to define and even harder to implement or enforce. It is obvious that whenever man attempts to find consensus on such matters the diversity of thought or opinion makes a solution unreachable.

Going back to the simplest elements most natural law advocates would argue that common to all living entities we have the right to breathe good air (or water for fish), have a home / shelter (place or territory), to be fed, to procreate, to move about in whatever way is normal or achievable without any adverse effects inflicted by others, and to live as we desire. But a simple analogy refutes natural law as a basis for the pre-eminence of Common Law.

In the fields one day fox was heading north along a trail through the tall grass looking for food. At the same time rabbit was bounding along a trail towards the rising sun in the east heading for his burrow. The two paths crossed, and by chance both rabbit and fox arrive at the intersection at precisely the same time. Both stopped, inches from each other. Fox licked his lips. On seeing this rabbit said “Please don’t hurt me, I have the right to life and to travel and go into my burrow.” To which Fox answered “You are a herbivore, you eat grass, I am a carnivore and I eat meat.” Then, before Rabbit could move Fox lunged, took him by the throat and clamped down with his powerful jaws”. After he had eaten his fill Fox loped along the track looking for a shady tree to lie under and digest his breakfast.

In this story Fox obtained all his rights, but that was at the expense of the loss of all of rabbit’s rights. Under natural law there will always be some that win and some that lose.
So, if you try an argue a Common Law principle or case using natural law as the fundamental basis for your argument, you immediately run up against situations like Fox and Rabbit, or philosophical conundrums as argued by philosophers since Aristotle. More recently Jordan Peterson went into natural law and determined that everything in nature is about finding a secure place to live and eating something living or for something living avoiding being eaten. The natural world he described as simply “Brutal!”.

Taking the argument into everyday life for the human race there are people that live and go about their own business, making money, raising a family, enjoying life, and there are people who have the singular goal to disrupt or destroy the lives of anyone they don’t like, or, who is not of their philosophy, and that even includes rivals within their philosophy. In other words, bereft of empathy or compassion, or simply brutal. This is their natural state so who are we to argue that one is right and one is wrong? Yet, society has written laws that are intended to curb certain actions or activities because of the detrimental impact on others, and imposed penalties upon people who break those laws. Societies have also written Constitutions designed to codify certain rights and freedoms as the ultimate and highest form of Law.

When you look at the Law of Man you notice two things, all laws for the protection of life, freedom and property come from one ancient source and one source alone. The Bible. But even in the enacting of societal law we can see the fox and rabbit encounters. Our societies pass laws that permit the murder of the unborn and the aged, the most helpless in our society. People in the highest levels of government and business are actively involved in activities that would, in a ‘rational’ human being, be described as crimes against humanity, yet much of what they do is under the sanctions of law, such as genocide by the mandating of harmful medical procedures. All this is under the sanction of natural law since God’s law is specific and explicit in forbidding all these activities.
In its simplest form God’s law can be summed up as;
“Do no harm, cause no loss, inflict no injury and always deal honourably with your fellow man”, and I would add to this “Love the lord your God with all your heart and all your soul and all your mind and all your strength, and love your neighbour as you would love yourself”.

This problem with natural law is one of the main reasons why, in a Admiralty or Corporate legal system, appeals to natural law, as a justification for a legal position, fail! We have to remember that in the immediate future we will not be litigating in Common Law courts, but will be doing legal battle in the Admiralty / Maritime, or Corporate law system and, believe it or not, that legal system is constrained by the precedents set out in the Bible. The God of the Bible, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, is the creator of the system that governs the behaviours of man and his society, that make one thing lawful and another unlawful. That pervasive criteria of acts being lawful or unlawful extends into the spiritual realm. Sa’-tan cannot operate without the legal right to do so, therefore what are termed as satanic ideas or actions, cannot find their implementation without the lawful consent of the people being subject to that act. This is reflected in the maxim of Law that silence or inaction is implied consent, and much of the ills in our society is happening because those that should, and could have taken action, or spoken out to stop some new law, failed to do so.

If we in New Zealand are to successfully counter the evil and corrupt activities of people in high places, or who have authority, whether real or perceived, then we must understand the Biblical origins of the systems of the world and acknowledge the God of the Bible, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, as the originator and sustainer of our Common Law.