Law of the Land

You have rights antecedent to all earthly governments; rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws; rights derived from the Great Legislator of the Universe. Except when those rights are unpopular.
 
You guys should read "Deep Survival; Who Lives, Who Dies, and Why." In it, Gonzales talks about the psychology of survival, and he spends a good amount of time talking about how people have difficulty realizing they're in trouble and so the normal rules don't apply anymore. For example, he discusses a fire fighter who goes on a hike, gets lost, and wanders for days in a steadily deteriorating physical condition before deciding that maybe, yes, it is ok to start a signal fire after all.

There comes a point in any survival situation when some or all the rules are off the table. The hard part for people who study these things isn't knowing that that point can be reached, but rather recognizing that that point HAS ARRIVED, and recognizing it in time to do something about it.

For a good guide on how to recognize when the "survival point" has been reached, read "The Gift of Fear" by Gavin De Becker.
 
shecky said:
You have rights antecedent to all earthly governments; rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws; rights derived from the Great Legislator of the Universe. Except when those rights are unpopular.
Click to expand...

Coincidentally, that was your post # 666. :D

OK, "You have rights ..." What are they? What are "rights", anyway, and what rights do you think are antecedent to all earthly governments?

That's part of the point of this thread, to decide what those rights might be. Ahead of the fact. Not after the ship hits the sand and you lash out in panic yelling, "I got rights!"

The only rights that are unpopular are other people's rights. Our own rights are very popular. With us.
 
Esav makes a good point here. Which is why I thought it was a very good topic of discussion. To discuss which rights people believe they inherently possess, particularly in a survival situation, where said "Earthly government" disagrees. Knowing those rights prior to a serious situation might help you see the signs of it encroaching, what you should do, and what you are willing to do...be it legal or not.

Gautier
 
We can use a certain amount of logic here -- in fact, I think logic defines Natural Law more often than it does Man's Law. :p

1) Given an emergency situation, you can surely do anything that harms no one and leaves the environment largely unharmed for others' use, as well.

Environment in this sense would include civilized resources also, not just the wild.

2) You can defend your rights as in 1) above against anyone with no significantly greater need than yourself.

3) If your life or physical ability to continue are at risk, you can take what you need from others.

How far you can go with this is a matter for close debate. Would the Great Legislator of the Universe agree you could trade someone else's life for your own?

Conversely, if someone else's life or ability to continue were at risk, would the Great Legislator of the Universe not want you to sacrifice at least some comfort or resources to support them?
 
I agree with that line of logic, personally. As for the two hypothetical questions;
As was stated earlier, unless it's the person that is putting you at imminent risk or actively preventing you from taking action against a potentially dangerous or debilitating situation and not the situation itself. Then you have no inherent "right" to take their life, and logically it serves no purpose. It becomes a morality issue, and it's just murder at that point, for despiration or whatever reason that isn't covered by the above.

To address the second hypothetical. I believe that if it's within your power to help someone in serious distress or a situation that is potentially dangerous or debilitating, and you can provide that help without putting yourself in an equally dire situation. That it's somewhat of an obligation to lend a hand.

Bear in mind, these are just my thoughts and opinions on it. I try to put things in a logical manner, but can't deny some biases, particularly in this case. While we have inherent rights, I believe we also have inherent responsibilities that come with those.

Gautier
 
Gautier said:
While we have inherent rights, I believe we also have inherent responsibilities that come with those.
Click to expand...

The magic words! There are no rights without responsibilities. This is the mediating point between countervailing rights, even in human law: you have a right to free expression but I have a right not to be libelled.

Does it make a difference -- should it make a difference -- if the person in need, whom you might help, is heading far away, or will be staying in the immediate area?

You could always use a friend, but do you "need" to make a friend of someone who can never help you later? Does spreading a culture of altruism ultimately ease the pressure of dealing with strangers?

There is some evidence that being friendly, open, and helpful reduces psychological stress on yourself. Being less stressed makes it easier for you to make better decisions.
 
Gautier said:
I believe that if it's within your power to help someone in serious distress or a situation that is potentially dangerous or debilitating, and you can provide that help without putting yourself in an equally dire situation. That it's somewhat of an obligation to lend a hand.
Click to expand...

Imagine being stuck in a lifeboat with another person. Both of you are ordinary, decent people, who met onboard the cruise ship before it sank.

You're OK, he's injured. You grabbed your bugout bag, he's bereft of resources.

Do you help him out or let him die? If you share your food and water, neither of you might make it. If you don't, he might kill you for them ...
 
I think I'd stand a pretty good chance against an injured man if I'm "Ok" ;)

In all seriousness though, as I said, if you are able to help "without putting yourself in an equally dire situation". Without knowing other factors, it's hard to say.


Gautier
 
What if helping him gets enough of his strength back that the two of you together can now fish, or land the lifeboat, something you might not have done alone?

If you can't take a chance on other reasonable people, they won't take a chance on you.

I think altruism is inherent in living cretures on at least two levels, and for a reason. It is an effective survival tool for the group. That's a Law of Nature.
 
I agree, and hypothetically, that's possible. Since it's not my scenario, there are a lot of major "What if's?". Injured could be a severed femural artery, or a superficial laceration. My bugout bag may have partial contents lost during the sink. So on and so forth, I'd have to logically weigh the what if's. I'm aware of what I'd do in both situations.

So far as I know there are no laws restricting whether or not I make the choice then though. You pointed out that altruism is a law of nature, and that was ultimately the original question. Foregoing written law, in favor of unwritten law. Definitely some interesting points and opinions made and stated so far. :thumbup:

Gautier
 
hotrodKelley said:
"The Bible is the Book upon which this REPUBLIC rests"-Andrew Jackson, Seventh President of the United States
"The moral principles and precepts contained in the Scriptures ought to form the basis of all our civil constitutions and laws. All the miseries and evils which men suffer from vice, crime, ambition, injustice, oppresion, slavery, and war, proceed from their despising or neglecting the precepts contained in the Bible."-Noah Webster
Click to expand...

No offense, but the Bible condones all sorts of activities that most people would consider morally repugnant today. It also most certainly is NOT the book upon which our republic rests.

People seem to have forgot that AMERICA started out as a REPUBLIC. It is now a democracy which is dangerous because it is a ONE vote system as opposed to a Republic, which is a THREE vote system. Three votes to check tyranny, not just one.
Click to expand...

The words democracy and republic are both vague terms that indicate a form of government where the ultimate power is vested in the people. (Republic is from the Latin, res publica, "thing of the public/people"; Democracy is from the Greek, demos kratos "power in the people".)

By themselves, the words mean pretty much the same thing, which is really very little. Many people associate democracy with direct democracy and republicanism with representative government, but those are both special cases of the terms. Likewise, neither form of government strictly requires a constitution or separation of powers. Effectively, it's impossible to describe a government like the one in modern day America with a single word.

"Those people who are not governed by GOD will be ruled by tyrants."-William Penn
Click to expand...

I prefer neither of the above.

"Man will never be free until the last King is strangled with the entrails of the last Priest."
- Denis Diderot
 
Esav Benyamin said:
Coincidentally, that was your post # 666. :D

OK, "You have rights ..." What are they? What are "rights", anyway, and what rights do you think are antecedent to all earthly governments?

That's part of the point of this thread, to decide what those rights might be. Ahead of the fact. Not after the ship hits the sand and you lash out in panic yelling, "I got rights!"

The only rights that are unpopular are other people's rights. Our own rights are very popular. With us.
Click to expand...


This is pretty much spot on. Rights are simply a societal construct, nothing more. Rights are created by people when they enter into society, they do not come from God or nature or reason or anything else. For every right, there is a corresponding duty or obligation on the part of all others to respect that right, which also must be agreed to. Likewise, there must be an agreement on the part of the members of that society to enforce these agreed upon rights or they will not amount to anything. Incidentally, this is one of the reasons people form governments in the first place.

However, like I said in my first post, in a true life or death survival situation, forget about rights, laws, and morals as these are just made-up concepts that, while very useful in civilized society, are meaningless when on your own surviving in the wilderness. Do what you must to survive and ensure the survival of your loved ones.
 
Rich_S said:
No offense, but the Bible condones all sorts of activities that most people would consider morally repugnant today. It also most certainly is NOT the book upon which our republic rests.



The words democracy and republic are both vague terms that indicate a form of government where the ultimate power is vested in the people. (Republic is from the Latin, res publica, "thing of the public/people"; Democracy is from the Greek, demos kratos "power in the people".)

By themselves, the words mean pretty much the same thing, which is really very little. Many people associate democracy with direct democracy and republicanism with representative government, but those are both special cases of the terms. Likewise, neither form of government strictly requires a constitution or separation of powers. Effectively, it's impossible to describe a government like the one in modern day America with a single word.



I prefer neither of the above.

"Man will never be free until the last King is strangled with the entrails of the last Priest."
- Denis Diderot
Click to expand...

I was going to let this go, but can't. What activities does the Bible condone that are morally repugnant? As of the peoples living today, are you trying to say that we are more morally sound than the people before us? Surely not. As far as Andrew Jackson's quote, I'm positive that he was more wise than you. As for your defense, it is definately not the book on which our republic rests...TODAY, with all the coruption, lies and deceit. As for preferring neither God or a Tyrant, what is George W Bush? I'll give you a hint, he's not a god.;)
 
I don't care how bad a survival situation gets I will not turn into an animal. Everytime these discussions come up someone says they will do what ever the have/want to in a survival situation to help themselves and family, those people are not survivalists they are anarchists. Chris
 
hotrodKelley said:
I was going to let this go, but can't. What activities does the Bible condone that are morally repugnant?
Click to expand...

Slavery, murder, rape, among other things. And it hardly preaches tolerance for people who follow other religions or no religion at all.

As of the peoples living today, are you trying to say that we are more morally sound than the people before us? Surely not.
Click to expand...

That would depend on how you define "more moral". If you think we should stone to death people who practice other religions, commit adultery, are homosexual, girls who turn out not to be virgins on their wedding night, etc.; if you think rape victims should be forced to marry their rapists; if you think slavery is acceptable; then I guess the people who came before us were "more moral". I do not share such a view.

As far as Andrew Jackson's quote, I'm positive that he was more wise than you.
Click to expand...

I'm not all that interested in appeals to authority. He may well have been a very wise man, nevertheless, the statement that the Bible is the book upon which our republic was founded is flat out wrong.

As for your defense, it is definately not the book on which our republic rests...TODAY, with all the coruption, lies and deceit. As for preferring neither God or a Tyrant, what is George W Bush? I'll give you a hint, he's not a god.;)
Click to expand...

Who said anything about George W. Bush? And why are the only two choices God or a tyrant?
 
runningboar said:
I don't care how bad a survival situation gets I will not turn into an animal. Everytime these discussions come up someone says they will do what ever the have/want to in a survival situation to help themselves and family, those people are not survivalists they are anarchists. Chris
Click to expand...

It depends upon the circumstances, obviously.

I'm not suggesting that you should kill and eat your neighbors in the event that the power goes out for a few hours. On the other hand, if you're lost in the wilderness and starving to death, I wouldn't worry about hunting out of season or building a fire to cook your food being against the regulations.
 
Guys, please leave the religious/political arguments out of this.

While we often see "Laws of Nature" as religiously justified, and "Laws of Man" as politically structured, discussing survival methodologies with reference to current events and beliefs is just going to distract from the value of this thread.
 
Rich_S said:
Slavery, murder, rape, among other things. And it hardly preaches tolerance for people who follow other religions or no religion at all.



That would depend on how you define "more moral". If you think we should stone to death people who practice other religions, commit adultery, are homosexual, girls who turn out not to be virgins on their wedding night, etc.; if you think rape victims should be forced to marry their rapists; if you think slavery is acceptable; then I guess the people who came before us were "more moral". I do not share such a view.



I'm not all that interested in appeals to authority. He may well have been a very wise man, nevertheless, the statement that the Bible is the book upon which our republic was founded is flat out wrong.



Who said anything about George W. Bush? And why are the only two choices God or a tyrant?
Click to expand...

Actually, your view is that you dont have one. If you dont stand for something you will fall for everything.
 
Once again, please, drop it. The Political Arena has held many excellent discussions on the roots and relationships between religion and politics. It belongs there, not here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top