Natural Law II

I showed an acquaintance , JB, the article I wrote on “Natural Law”. I think he was impressed and thought I captured its essence pretty well. Interestingly, he focused on one particular idea I mentioned, “ruling class”.

One thing JB said that is interesting is, “rudimentary to ruling class is the concept of the ‘survival of the fittest’. He said that those two concepts are essentially conservative ones, confirming what I thought. What he said also added support to my argument that the person who originated the phrase “survival of the fittest”, Herbert Spencer, was a conservative. I was challenged on that point by another acquaintance.

JB wrote “natural law is unavoidable and it is the reason why neither communism or socialism are a viable system of economic and human governance”. I agree with him. It is an idea that I have been trying to articulate in past essays. He is saying that natural law doesn’t only apply to human existence but also to governing systems. What ‘natural law’ and ‘survival of the fittest’ are saying is that communism and socialism were not fit to survive because they didn’t follow natural law, the law of the ‘jungle’, which says that you have to remain current and adapt if you want to survive. Also, those systems tried to circumvent and reinvent natural law. All systems have to renew themselves to survive. That is natural. Communism in particular was inherently incapable of renewing itself. There are forces in nature that eat equally away at both physical and abstract systems. Natural law cannot distinguish between them. Abstract systems like human governance suffer from the same deteriorating forces of atrophy and entropy as do physical systems. They suffer from ware and tare, obsolescence and neglect. In physical systems parts have to be replaced. In abstract systems ideas and methods have to be replaced. Both systems also require maintenance. Communism, unlike Democracy, was incapable of replace worn out, static methods and ideas in its governance with new and fresh ones, Inherently it didn’t have the means or compulsion to do so. Communism succumbed to the dictates of natural law. It couldn’t avoid them. Hence its collapse.
 
“But also a natural law is the human desire to "level the playing field" for those unable to do so on their own. So no matter the dismal historical outcome of such efforts, we try and try again...thinking that we just have not hit on the right combination yet...struck the right balance so to speak.” After reading that I think natural law can be manipulated and transcended. How did I deduce that from what JB wrote? Let me explain.

There is Natural Law and then there is natural law, the latter is the advent of humans. Humans, in a sense , have transcended some aspects of Natural Law. JB implies this, although not intentionally. First of all, he believes and said, like a true conservative, that natural law says there are those who are born to govern and those who are born to be governed. But he is also saying that in doesn’t necessarily have to be that way because of the desire to “level the playing field”. For instance, there have been people from humble backgrounds with no governing experience that have become presidents and prime ministers. Such a transition has occurred mostly under Democracy, a system that has transcended and transformed the natural laws of the past. Natural law now believes more in equally than it did in the past, leveling the playing field as JB said. Whereas in the past natural law said it was only natural for kings and monarchies to rule, it now says it is natural for anybody who thinks she/he can be a leader to be a leader. Natural law doesn’t discriminate like it used to or is socially imposed as it used to be. Today’s natural law also says you don’t have to remain poor because you were born poor. It also says that one can move beyond one’s ‘station’ if one has the ability or desire.
 
I sort of get the impression that JB thinks, showing his conservative colors, it is futile to for people to try and transcend natural law and the ‘stations’ in life they have been handed. However, America, where he resides, is a great example of transcending what was once presumed to be social nature law. For instance, social natural law in the past was totally against same sex relationships. However , today it is almost as natural as heterosexual relationships. Also, years ago it was believed that blacks would never be equal to whites. That’s no longer is naturally accepted. I remember reading that in the 50’s it was natural to think that Jews, minorities and women would never rise to senior management position in large corporations. It also was unnatural for them to be in politics. Today those old natural laws have been transcended and the world has not fallen apart.