Fusionism

When I had originally written about Fusionist Republicans or, more correctly, Fusionist Conservatism I had used it as a term to describe the fundamental alignment that happens with SoCons and TP FiCons, and only to a lesser extent with Libertarians.  I described it like this:

Fiscal Conservatism has deep roots in not only societal good but the teachings from the Judeo-Christian heritage about duty to God and one's fellow man.  Unlike libertarians the Fusionists recognize that not all of man's liberties and rights are positive, as Nature gives us both equally (although not in equal amounts), so that the necessity of society to generate organs to watch over and stop the exercise of negative liberties and rights within society requires government.  Man is not wholly good nor evil, but has positive and negative rights and liberties which we can bias via moral teachings to curb the negative rights and liberties and enshrine the positive ones worthy of protection.  Government is to recognize that these positive liberties and rights are to be protected, not infringed upon, and the case for this comes not from legal proceedings but from moral teachings, upholding society, and holding government accountable for the negative powers we grant it to safeguard society and the individual.  This is a deeply libertarian approach, yes, but it is not made by modern libertarian channels but through ones of religious observance, religious teachings and understanding man's duty to God and his fellow man.  Fusionist Conservatism is, at once, deeply conservative and extremely expansive in this day and age as it is the naturally recognized antidote to tyrannical or despotic government.

When I had been asked, many times, why I was not a Libertarian, I put forward that the main reason is the lack of the concept of Honor beyond mere agreements in the Libertarian lexicon.  Personal honor is something that has a foundation on the understanding that one is not only to follow through on agreements, but to state them explicitly and back them up.  Honor extends past mere commercial and personal liberty realms and is a responsibility system that one must take upon themselves to limit their negative Natural rights and liberties added to the upholding of the positive ones in full for oneself.

The substance of Fusionism is that deeply moral roots of personal behavior see that man is invested with his Natural rights by God (Moral Law), that our nature in this Natural world is unchanging in that we get both the positive and negative aspects of our Natural rights (Natural Law), and through the conscious decisions to marry and protect our families we create the foundation for society (Law of Nations) which must be administered via common agreement amongst our fellow man so as to restrict those liberties that would harm all of us if exercised by any of us (Civil Law).  Moral Law informs us what is good and bad behavior so as to create a stronger society, and what administrative functions must be put in place so as to punish the exercise of those liberties and rights that put individuals and society at peril via their exercise.  We exercise our honor in respecting the Moral Law when exercising our positive Natural rights and liberties, and also acknowledge that the function of our society is to create a government that has acceptable laws to all members of society and imposes penalties upon those who wish to transgress those boundaries and that those boundaries are respected in our actions.

This concept of Fusionism was one I hadn't researched nor examined, but just stated.

I am surprised that not only the content but name of the idea is in use for this, but then the self-evident is the self-evident in the way of things.  In reading Instapundit he linked to an article on 05 MAR 2012 by Dan Mitchell - How to Reconcile Liberty, Morality, Conservatism and Libertarianism.  In his discussion he reveals that his view was sparked by Timothy P. Carney at the Washington Examiner on 04 MAR 2012 entitled Santorum, liberty, morality and the culture wars.  The key part that Mr. Mitchell picks out from Mr. Carney is this one:

When liberals cry that conservatives are trying to legislate morality, that's typically projection and misdirection from liberal attempts to legislate morality -- they say we're trying to outlaw buying contraception because we oppose their efforts to mandate buying contraception. Santorum is the most frequent target of the bogus "condom police" arguments, even though he has repeatedly stated and written that he doesn't think government at any level should outlaw contraception. But the confusion is not totally unfounded, considering how often Santorum does try to legislate morality.
St. Augustine wisely asked "what does it really matter to a man whose days are numbered what government he must obey, so long as he is not compelled to act against God or his conscience?" This ought to be the Right's threshold in the culture wars. More often than not, in the United States these days, it's the secular Left imposing its morality on the religious Right.

Don't want to photograph a gay wedding? You're fined. Don't want to sell the morning-after pill at your pharmacy? You're driven out of your job. Don't want to pay for your employees' sterilization? You're a criminal. Don't want to subsidize Planned Parenthood with your tax dollars? Tough, pay up.

An alliance between libertarians and conservatives is natural and right today. But Santorum has not only behaved as if he wants to drive the libertarians away, he has openly stated so -- repeatedly.

The legislation of morality, as such, is done via stopping the exercise of negative rights and liberties by individuals that will harm other individuals and society as a whole.  Government is an organ of society that does just this, and that is its role and purpose.  In addition the Nation State gets duties to perform (via Law of Nations) and a population grants negative powers to do so (via Civil Law).  When government seeks to promote positive liberty via its actions, it infringes upon the positive rights and liberties of individuals and society and, thusly, lessen them.  From the perspective of the political left, the necessity of an 'activist' government that does 'more' for people has required the 'finding' of 'new' rights by government and putting forward that those rights need to be 'supported' by government 'regulation'.

The word for this is: tyranny.

Imposing positive rights by government is neither the function nor role of government, and each and every single time any government has gone on this path it has collapsed itself because it has collapsed the society beneath it.  There is the story of Augustus Caesar who, in his old age, looked at the rapidly decaying Roman society and realized that his laws and edicts had removed the final vestiges of the old Roman Republic, and spent his last years trying to legislate positive morality back into existence when it no longer had any to uphold it actively in society and government.  It does not matter if the government is that of the bloody French Revolution, the Soviet Revolution, the ascension of Mussolini into totalitarian rule, the advance of Mao via his bloody rise and even more bloody rule, Pol Pot and the Killing Fields, or the wonderful kingdom of the Kim's in NoKo when the end is pure and total government power, then society degrades and diminishes and only the continued lashing of the subservient can keep anything running.  Some of these societies started out in a high state of decay, in fact most did, while others had never tasted freedom or liberty before and would not do so through their revolutions.  In each case these governments see fit to be totalitarian, that is taking up the totality of all powers positive and negative, and then finds that government is only a tool to stop the exercise of the negative.

It is very strange that this needs to be enshrined as Carney's Law - The moral law should guide our personal actions and individual liberty should guide our personal decisions.

Why strange?

Anyone who has read my review of Pufendorf's On the Duty of Man and Citizen, would see that this has already been described in 1673 (and just a bit prior to that in the much longer, multi-volume work by Pufendorf on the subject).

With that said the thought is in the air and while Rick Santorum is a flawed, human vessel, perhaps unable to unite these trends that are beginning to come together, the idea that they will come together and reunite and fuse into a coherent whole is the direction that our society is taking.  The main trend of trying to break society apart by isolating Moral Law, Natural Law, Law of Nations and Civil Law is one that has reached its zenith some decades ago.  The century and more of Progressivism, Socialism, Communism and Leftism from Bismarck's Statism as an attempt to stop Socialism and, thusly, mimicking it, all the way to the idea that health care is a 'right' and not an exercise of liberty, that arc has reached its end and has trashed societies across the world.

Yet the self-evident, no matter its source, is self-evident: all rights and liberties are born within you and you are the moral actor in this world, and it is your duty to uphold those positive aspects of common agreement as well as support the punishment of those who wish to destroy society via the exercise of negative rights and liberty on their own.  From this concept, born from many places and guided by Moral Law, does man, of necessity, rule himself, first.  Instead of ushering in a great age of plenty, those who have supported taking over the positive liberties and rights from individuals are now finding them faced with the Abyss of Tyranny.  Those seeking Tyranny are attempting to push their fellow man into that Abyss.  Joining in our understanding to step back will be painful for us, and a joy to our children and a blessing to those who follow us.

Fusionism is coming as part of the Third Great Awakening and no longer will we believe we must give up the stars to spend on the poor and, instead, let all mankind know that nothing can fix the poverty of the soul of those wishing to take our dreams from us.  This will not be done because it is easy, no, that is not the case.  It will be done because it is worth the sacrifice of our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor to each other to have a future of freedom and turn one last time from tyranny and leave it in our dust.

Forever.

On the Duties of Everyman - to Everyman

This post is a continuation of the examination of Samuel Pufendorf's On the Duty of Man and Citizen (1682).  This post follows the previous section I've looked at On the Duties of Man - To God, On the Duties of Man - To Man plus the overview of why this is important in Three Realms of Law.  This work by Pufendorf is, itself, an overview of a multi-volume work he had generated and thought that a primer on that work, suitable for students, would be a vital part of a teaching curricula examining Natural Law.  I will continue to do the overview of his logic and keep my usual commentary in abeyance as much as possible so as to follow Pufendorf's line of reasoning so that the outline of it is plain to see.

Like previous posts I will summarize Pufendorf's work.  Unlike prior works I will bring in more of his own reasoning system so as to highlight his overview on the Duties we have and why they are important which will require some of my own verbiage and attempt to see if there is any insight I can pass on to you, as a reader.  For this I am sorry for any clumsiness on my part as an individual, and will attempt to use reason to guide me throughout.

 

The Duties of Everyman to Everyman is a critical juncture as it moves from the realm of individual obligations well understood and are placed wholly upon the individual, to those of Man to our society and other men in society.  In this realm of Duties there are two major areas to know:

First those duties bound to us by our Creator, which are called absolute duties.  These are the duties imposed upon man to bind us to other men.  This is a strong binding and is universal, thusly it is absolute.

Second are those duties imposed upon us by custom or otherwise taken up as part of tradition that is advantageous to the creation and maintenance of society.  These are called hypothetical duties as they vary from culture to culture, tradition to tradition.

One is constant over all mankind so that we can have societies amongst men.  The other is variable upon individual societies and custom.

The first of all absolute duties is our obligation not to harm other men.  This is, at once, the most far-reaching and simplest of all things as it requires the mere omission of harming others, which is to say not to act.  Self-restraint via the light of reason is to restrain our passions.  It is the most necessary duty of man to have society and is the essential and necessary part of forming all societies.  As Pufendorf states:

For I can live at peace with a man who does me no positive service, and with a man who does not exchange even the commonest of duties with me, provided he does me no harm. In fact, this is all we desire from mankind at large; it is only within a fairly small circle that we impart good things to each other.

Here, then, is not only the Hippocratic Oath, but our general oath to each other: first do no harm.  Our minimal requirement beyond that is essential, however, and it is encapsulated in the idea of 'leave me alone'.  This is the most obvious of doctrines that it should be self-evident, and yet we stray as men in this so often that we cause pain and suffering all under the banner of doing good and well to others.  That cannot be done for all of mankind nor even society as a whole, but only amongst a relatively small circle of virtuous people who freely partake of positive exchanges with each other.

The obverse of this coin is likewise obvious and should be self-evident:

By contrast, there is no way that I can leave at peace with a man who does me harm. For nature has implanted in each man such a tender love of himself and of what he is, that he cannot but repel every means one offer to do harm to either.

There is no space between the first quote and the second, they are of one paragraph, one thought, and yet both concepts are absolute upon mankind as a whole and upon us as men being individuals.  The restraint of doing harm has both positive aspects, when things are not done to others, and negatives, when things that are negative are done to others.  As day follows night, this is obvious to all and a necessary pre-requisite to maintain oneself and one's society, yet at every turn in history where there is suffering and pain, both of these are transgressed.

If we are inspired by later summations of the self-evident and unalienable rights that we are endowed with, then we must be able to identify what these actually are.  Other parts of my prior examinations have been recapitulations of Pufendorf's work, and yet that passive understanding, while strong, needs some active statement at this point by me.

This necessary Duty is not only upon those things that are endowed to us by Nature, which is to say life, body, limbs, chastity and liberty, but upon those things we get as members of society via human convention and institutions.  Thus all our negative liberties and rights, for to have a negative right one gets the negative liberty of its use, must be restrained, which is to say taking things from others via spoilage, robbery, pillage.  These are crimes across all societies as these negative activities and utilization of our negative liberties puts at peril the good works of others as a violence by killing, wounding, robbery, theft, fraud and any other thing done by us directly or indirectly as an exercise of our negative liberties.

When we, As a People, speak of those few things given to government to do they are, without exception, an exercise of negative liberties that would put us all at peril from each other if they had no oversight at all.  This is not a new concept but a tradition carried on by all societies because they are societies created from marriage and that most basic binding upon us from that simple start of not exercising our negative liberties upon another person who we cling to.  From that formulation of society understood at least as far back as Brackton, it is now put forward as a full and essential right with liberty that must restrain us in its use against others beyond that of marriage.  We are not at the focal point of later documents, but at a concentration and amplification point here with Pufendorf who follows in the tradition of Brackton and Grotius and will propel this doctrine forward as it is simple, basic, self-evident and part of what we must do as an unalienable right and it comes with an unalienable duty to others.

Those who do harm are to be held accountable for their actions and all punishment and restitution is to be sought from those who do such wrongs.  Without restitution to those that have been harmed, there would be no check upon the wicked and no ability of the wronged to make peace with himself or with that individual or individuals that have done him harm.  This is all harm not just to a person but their property which has been demonstrated previously as being the means by which we support ourselves and gather together those things we create or exchange to sustain us in this life within nature.  Without compensation for those things stolen or despoiled there is no way way to make whole that which has been broken.  Simple punishment is not enough as following loss due to the original harm are all part of the original harm, without exception, and are to be considered wholly a part of such harm.

Do note that since this is in the section of Duties of Everyman to Everyman that this is what we must uphold across all mankind so as to have society and to have punishment, recompense, restitution and reconciliation amongst men.  Single and simple punishment is not enough standing on its own.  Any thought of rehabilitation without restitution and reconciliation is empty and meaningless to those who have been harmed.  This is the concept of atonement, literally 'at onement' in which the individual who atones is recognized as doing so and that the individual will not transgress that boundary again.

This is true when one acts alone to harm others and when one acts with others to harm others, the cost and obligation is held by all either in part, if simply acting as a willing actor in such harm, or equally in whole if actively participating in such harm.  Partaking of the harm, itself, is the cause for punishment and for seeking restitution against those doing the causing.  Of those who do not partake in the causing of harm or doing of harm in any instance, there is no retribution, even when they express joy in the misery of others or seek to diminish the harm caused even if they wished for it before the act, so long as they did not partake of the act there is no cause for punishment.

Next is the concept called conspiracy (again the literal is 'to breathe together' which is to con-spire) in which several men act together to inflict loss or harm.  Those who conspire are the cause of the harm and any they pull in that are not understanding of the conspiracy are merely an instrument of it (although liable for any act that is criminal on its own).  It is those that are active in a conspiracy that are liable for its crimes so the act of any single individual in a conspiracy is attributable to all within it, and any act of the conspiracy itself are liable to all actors within it as individuals.  If only a single individual in a conspiracy is caught then that person is liable for the costs of all the damages of the entire conspiracy.  In any crime in which a number of individuals partake that is not a conspiracy, they are each liable for their own actions and damages they caused, not the entire group.  With that said if just one within an entire group that are not acting together is willing to pay the damages for all, then they may do so and the rest are not held for those costs.

Here we see that each man is a moral actor within society for his actions and when the utilization of negative liberties by a group that conspires against any individual, group or all of society, then they are seen as utilizing their negative liberties in concert and towards a given end that is not upheld by the law.  When one becomes a part of such a group then they are beholden for the ills perpetrated by the entire group.  That is what happens when you create a negative version of society against the rest of society: you lose the ability to say that you are an individual by your voluntary participation in such a group, just as in normal society.  Do note this is not some version of class or race based punishment, but punishment meted out only to those who voluntarily agree to exercise their negative rights and liberties against others.

In matters of restitution those who commit crimes with malice aforethought are as liable for repayment as those done in ignorance or negligence.  In cases where there cannot be oversight or in those where the chaos is so pervasive (as in war) that accidents happen because of such chaos, then restitution may be light.  That is also the case where the strictest of oversight is given and, due to no fault of any involved, damage is done.  The unforeseen is ever with us no matter how much care we take in events and the more chaotic the events the less care and oversight that is available to even trace culpability, not to speak of restitution.

The next action set pertains to slaves and their owners, with faults attributable to the owner.  While this is outdated for its original subject matter, it still pertains to autonomous devices and mechanisms that are set for a task and then either do so but with negative consequences, or fail to do so  and in going awry cause damages.  In these cases it is the owner of the device involved that is liable for the damages.  It is this simple concept that seems to have been lost in modern times, where we try to trace culpability to a manufacturer (who may, indeed, make a bad product) and not to the user who must exercise due diligence in the care and use of such objects and understand their faults and limitations.  Can a mere manufacturer be held liable for an item duly sold, therefore transferring ownership to another, with no fault being attached to the owner?  As individuals we have the ability and, indeed, obligation to understand what our machines and devices do, to have them checked over and to understand their problems much as the slave owner of prior times had.  Only if a manufacturer sells something with knowledge of faults of device before it is sold can they be under obligation for restitution due to presenting false evidence of its reliability and trustworthiness.   Due to the complexity of devices involved we also understand that even the manufacturer may not know of faults in their devices, and for that a much lower standard of restitution must be available if they demonstrate they have upheld all other manner of oversight for all known problems.  This derivative of slave ownership being now transferred to devices and machines thus creates the concept of 'quality control'.

As it is for slaves so it is for the animals we own and our culpability for their actions is one that goes along with that of slaves.  Likewise we are liable for restitution based on similar precepts.

We must understand that beyond liability for simple loss via negligence or lack of oversight, that restitution is as much as we may seek.  When there is no malice aforethought involved, simply making good a loss is the best that can be done on this Earth.

When malice is involved the higher standard of penitence is added to reparation, so that there is an attempt to be at one with those injured by admitting to the malice, restoring what balance can be made, and then seeking to never do such things again.

For the injured Pufendorf admonishes:

Anyone who refuses to be content with reparation and repentance, and insists in any case on seeking vengeance on his own account, is merely gratifying the bitterness of his own heart and destroying the peace among men for no good reason.  On this ground vengeance too is condemned by natural law, since its only aim is to give trouble to those who have done us harm, and to console our hearts with their pain.  It is the more appropriate that men forgive each other's offences, the more frequently they violate the laws of the supreme Deity and have themselves daily need of pardon.

On the Duties of Man - To Man

This post is a continuation of the examination of Samuel Pufendorf's On the Duty of Man and Citizen (1682).  This post follows the previous section I've looked at On the Duties of Man - To God plus the overview of why this is important in Three Realms of Law.  This work by Pufendorf is, itself, an overview of a multi-volume work he had generated and thought that a primer on that work, suitable for students, would be a vital part of a teaching curricula examining Natural Law.  I will continue to do the overview of his logic and keep my usual commentary in abeyance as much as possible so as to follow Pufendorf's line of reasoning so that the outline of it is plain to see.

In the post-Westphalia tradition of Europe (and America) the concept of the 'Separation of Church and State' is one that is done for the benefit of the Church which had become a key part in State power.  The 30 Years War revolved around the question of which religion was to hold sway over Europe and the Nobles and States of that era followed differing religious beliefs and then imposed those on the people of their holdings or States.  When a realm went from Roman Catholic to Protestant, there would follow the forced change in religious outlook from the top - down.  This would include grabbing the material wealth of the religious doctrine that was in disfavor and the persecution, and often execution, of those who would not convert over to the State's new religious outlook.  With 15% of Europe dead by the end of the conflict, the Great Peace of Westphalia would impose restrictions, agreed to by treaty, upon all those taking part in the Treaty.  While the Roman Catholic Church via the Vatican did not take official part in the Treaty, Roman Catholics could and did help the formulation of it.  This treaty would break apart the links of State and Church so that States could not repress or suppress any of the three forms of Christianity then extant in Europe: Roman Catholicism, Protestantism and Calvinism.

During that conflict two major writers put forward their different conceptions of how they saw the work of Nation States and religion: Thomas Hobbes and Hugo Grotius.  Samuel Pufendorf examined their works (and many others, needless to say) and would then be the first writer in the post-Westphalian world to blend the outlooks of both Hobbes and Grotius while taking into account the Treaty which would forever change the course of Europe.  Many of the ideas formulated by Pufendorf have resonance with prior works in the Greek and Latin world, and also with those in the Anglo-Saxon tradition like Bracton on the Laws and Customs of England. From the philosophical basis of reasoned examination dating back to Plato and Socrates, then putting in the Latin and Church traditions plus those of the Protestants, and blending in examinations of laws, states and religion, Samuel Pufendorf would be one of the first to present what we would call a 'liberal' view of the world by positing that God is not enough, nor is having a State and that there is a third realm which is Creation in which we must all exist that is separate from both God's moral law and the law we create via the State.  This is Natural Law which is ever present in our mortal life, restricts us in our views, and otherwise shows the physical instantiation of God's Will.  Being part of that Creation we must take it into account as it speaks of God's Will in a way that is not contained by Scripture nor can it be dictated to by the State.  When we examine our Duties as Man and Citizen we cannot leave out this thing called Natural Law as it is a vital part of what allows us to have States so as to be Citizens.

With that, I now proceed on to our Duties to Man.

---

The duty of Man to oneself starts with the very simple and self-evident truth that self-love is something that we are born with.  We use our natural gifts and talents from the Creator to our own good and self-interest, thusly we care about ourselves and love ourselves to do those necessary things.  If we did not have that self-love we would assuredly perish.  There is no need to impress obligation of self-love from any other venue: you have it as a given at birth.

From the Creator also comes the self-evident truth that you do not wish your natural gifts to perish and that they must be used so as to contribute to human Society so as to seek the preservation of such gifts over time.  Having such gifts and not recognizing that you have them is your shame and loss, but when taught that you have them those doing the teaching are right to punish the pupil for not recognizing their own gifts and utilizing them  It is one thing to neglect one's gifts through ignorance, another to purposely ignore them when those willing to show the vital use of them are at hand.

We do this because we, as individuals, have two parts to us - the soul [anima] which drives and controls the physical body via the intermediary of the mind [animus] which is our direct government of our body.  It is the mind which must encompass Society, not only look after the needs of the body, and it is to that part of us that our ability to become a contributing and vital part of society is held.  Our soul directs, the mind then does the work of following those orders as best as possible within the realm of what can be done via the body.  All morals and ethics are decided upon by the mind, in accordance with the soul so as to give the body the greatest chance to survive and prosper.  With that said our physical needs cannot dictate to us as that then creates gluttony, sloth and the creation of passions not directed clearly towards our self-betterment and may actually be contrary to it and our contact with Society.  A strong spirit resists such temptations so as to become a better man, and those who give into them become less of themselves as they do not recognize the true direction of their self-evident obligations to themselves and Society.

Your life is given from the Creator and you are set for your time in life until the Creator requires you to leave it.  A man can choose a course in life that will shorten it, in doing hard labors and constantly tiring himself to the benefit of himself and Society a shorter life may ensue.  A citizen may willingly risk his life for others, so long as there is benefit to that and is not just adding to a general slaughter to no good ends.  With your life in your hands you must weigh and balance those times when sacrifice, even the ultimate sacrifice, on your part is of benefit to your Society which is the holder of those things which you have given to it in the way of yourself.  There is no obligation for such sacrifice, no words saying that you must give up your life for your fellow man, no one can decide that for you: only you can do that for yourself.

To throw away one's life is a violation of Natural Law in all instances.  It does not matter if it be due to personal misfortune, pain and suffering, throwing oneself into a lost battle to die or putting forward an empty show of faith, they are all the same.  No one profits from your death and Society mourns the loss of skills and fortitude necessary to continue on your life for its allotted time on Earth.  We can learn fortitude and strength from the suffering of others, that it is possible to confront such pain and anguish and survive and even come out the other side of it a better man.  For those with illnesses that will have no end, their example to us of how to live with such things is far, far more important than taking the easy way out for if they can suffer and cling to life until its bitter end, then that demonstrates the power of that life and our own life can benefit from that so as to steel ourselves for lesser travails than theirs.  As horrific as suffering is, and it wouldn't be suffering if it wasn't horrific, it does have a larger context in life and as a demonstration to others of the value of such life within the context of Society.  The greatest gift of the suffering isn't to die, but to live and show us how to lead with perseverance through all lesser times in our own lives.

From this, when the acts of another man put our lives in danger we have the obligation and natural right of self-defense to put ourselves out of danger while seeking to do as little harm to those who attack us as possible.  Self-defense when another takes a risky course of action to attack us or threaten us then invokes our duty, obligation and right to life, and there is no misdeed in carrying through with such self-defense.

Exercising self-defense has the negative effect of injury or death upon your attacker, yourself or both, and this cannot be denied.  While all life is to be cherished and protected, the concept of reciprocity of civility is a requirement for social discourse.  That is that a peaceful and friendly manner is to be reciprocated between people so as to have a civil environment.  As your safety as an individual is part of that sociality, there is no law that prevents one from defending himself from harm.  When one seeks to do harm to another or harm is being perpetrated upon you, the right to self-defense becomes a bulwark of civil discourse by upholding civil standards.  To not do so is to put at peril the good things provided by nature or industry and leave them open to despoliation.  Any attempt to remove the means of self-protection of individuals would be the death of the human race.

With those things said it must always be sought to mitigate the use of force via defensive action, by securing oneself so that an attacker's fury will have had a chance to wane.  Along with this is the prudence of not taking umbrage to minor slights so as to cause them to escalate into provocation and this is to be done if at all possible.

Defense of self includes defense of one's property as any who would violate one's property have already demonstrated no restraint on their actions.  To those ends defense of your property with violent means is allowable in the natural state and in the civil state for immediate purposes.  It is also allowable to chase those who have violated your property in the immediate extent.  In the natural setting you can do so until you have tracked down the individual, while in the civil setting this requires the recourse of the Magistrate and seeking the civil means of law to track such people down.  In the natural setting you can find change of heart and repentance from the individual who has done harm to your property, and you may accept that.  In the civil instance this is for the process of law to decide guilt or innocence.  In either instance it is mandatory to take away the tools available to such individuals to do harm again: that is either on the civil or natural state, it is mandatory that those who are judged guilty or who have repented of their ways have the tools of their ways removed from them.

The right of self-defense is against both those things done by malice and those done by error, thusly there is no right to kill another and submit to being killed due to error.  If you are mistaken for another and harm comes your way, your right to defend yourself is paramount, no matter the cause of the infliction of harm.

To defend oneself from harm by putting up innocent safeguards that will protect you from harm is part of your natural duties towards yourself against your fellow man.  Arming oneself, forming alliances, erecting fences and walls to protect yourself are all parts of what nature bids us to do in our self-defense and there is no wrong in doing them.  These works cannot be used to justify attacking another to conquer them and despoil their goods by force.  This is true no matter how powerful a neighbor is.

Upon seeing that a third party intends harm against another, your first duty is to yourself, save if you have treaty with another to protect him.  Again this is man in the natural state, not the Nation State with civil government and law that is being talked about.  Still, a powerful third party that seeks to conquer or subdue a neighbor can rightly be suspected of wishing to cause you harm after subduing your neighbor.  When you see that plans are laid for violence against you by a third party, you have the right of self-defense by force and seizing the initiative before such plans come to fruition so long as there is no hope of friendly warning dissuading him from such plans.  Defense is not merely avoiding blows, avoiding harm, nor evading your capture as the right of attack in your own defense before being attacked when the plans against you are clear then allows you to stop such plans by force.

In our civil states it is not allowable to attack a government when it is planning to do harm to a third party that plans harm against a fellow citizen.  It is always to be sought to bring such potential assailant before a common Magistrate so as to have his plans addressed in common.  You are not allowed the pre-emptive attack against a third party as a citizen in the civil state, and only once attacked is your right of self-defense to be called upon.  When such violence is visited upon one in the civil state it is your self-defense that allows you to take any measures, up to killing another, to protect yourself.  When such threat is neutralized by being driven off, by the death of the assailant or by you finding safe haven, you are not to continue the engagement but to get the office of civil government involved so as to address the matter.

There is no obligation to always seek the milder form of self-defense as, when one is attacked, the mental turmoil that ensues will change the evaluations of what is, exactly, to be done.  One might leave a place of safety to confront an attacker, one might not run when they are in open sight of an aggressor as to turn and flee is to invite falling or being attacked in the back.  Thus, even if there is relative safety with neighbors nearby, the mental state may not allow that to be an option.  One may also appear in public when they know that they are at risk of attack, the right of self-defense still holds in that case as well.  In the case of duels, however, there is no safe haven to self-defense as it is a purposeful event chosen by the individuals involved, thus the innocence of self-defense cannot be brought into play.

In defense of his limbs a man is allowed the same as in defending his life.

In addition female virtue is also guaranteed the same capability as self-defense.  No greater offense against a woman can be imagined than to take her against her will and force her to raise the child of her own blood for an enemy.

As property is a necessary part of living, those who attack our property are attacking our life in a very real sense.  We cannot preserve our life without our worldly goods, and those seeking to deprive you of them are attacking your life.  In the state of nature we can repel and hunt down such people, while in the civil state we appeal to the civil government for help of recovery but retain the right of self-defense against burglars and robbers of all sorts.

To move on from self-defense are those who have attacked others.  They are barred from self-defense until critical conditions are first met.  He must be repent of the harm he has caused others and give guarantee that he shall do no future harm to others.  That being offered such repentance if he shows savagery in his heart by refusing such and obtaining vengeance at his own hand.

Self-preservation is so high a natural duty that is seen as exempt from the common laws. 'Necessity knows no laws'.  There is no power, no authority, not God nor civil government that can impose an edict so strict upon us as to compel us to face death for them.  Because of this we give exception to laws that have put individuals in danger by following them and recognize that there is no compelling reason for a man to follow a law, no matter how well intentioned, that forces him not to obey self-preservation.

As examples a man may sacrifice an infected limb to save his life.

-On a lifeboat we draw lots if there is not enough food to go around, and those that will not abide by this are tossed overboard instead of letting common fate decide the ends of each.

-If thrown into a hole with deep water and you can swim and the other cannot, and he clings to you and drags you down, then you are within the right of self-defense to release yourself from his grasp.

-If shipwrecked and you find a plank or means to save yourself, but not another, and proceed to do so, and the other swims out to you threatening your survival, you may repel him.

-If an enemy chases two with intent to kill both and the only means of escape requires destroying the means to get to you, even if that means the other is killed, then you are to do so as your life would be forfeit otherwise.

It is also permissible by necessity to cause injury to another to escape death.  If pursued by a stronger man intent on harming you, and you flee down a confined alleyway and another person, innocent of the conflict, blocks the way, you are allowed to knock them down if they do not take the warning of your action or words as proof of your necessity.  You may very well cause harm to this person, but necessity allows such to save your own.  If that person blocking your way was an innocent or cripple, then at least the pursuer would  have the necessity of jumping over them and exposing himself, briefly, to the pursued.  And if the blocker is doing so wilfully, then he may be knocked down and flattened directly as they have courted their own disaster.

The poorest beggar, who has nothing left to sell, cannot sell his works or be hired, who gets no recompense from begging nor friends to succor him may seek to gain sustenance from those who have an overabundance without committing the crime of robbery, so long as there is intent to pay back such sustenance to those it is taken from.  From that it follows that the wealthy are by the limits of humanity, to help the poor and destitute as they are his fellow man.  Still a man is to try all other ways so as to sustain himself then falls under not only necessity but the perfection of obligation of doing no harm.  It can only be done to those not liable to fall into similar dire straits due to that loss and the obligation to make amends via full restitution is perfect and must be done.  If they cannot make a free gift of aid due to their circumstances, then your obligation is not to put them into the same peril you are now in.

Finally the necessity of destroying the property of others to save our own may only be done if there is no way to save the other's property and its value, to the other, is less than the value of your property to you.  In attempting to move or otherwise find means to save the property of another due to the imminent destruction of your own, when that loss is made you are to seek to give restitution to the one who has lost property.  If both properties are at risk and sacrificing some of another's will save yours from perishing, then the loss you are to make up is pro rata as you have saved both from ultimate harm by doing injury to another's property.  That is the basis of maritime law, and it serves on land as well as at sea for such events.

* * *

As with the previous section, I will not be commenting upon this section, save to say that the basis of what we understand our obligation to ourselves to be from natural law, and then under civil law, is something that is obvious and cannot be denied.  This is not due to the nature of civil society, but due to the nature of man, and as man is a being of Natural Law, and always will be no matter where we are in this mortal realm we are within the mortal realm and thus not transcendent of it.

After this comes the duty of every man to every man.

On the Duties of Man - To God

I am working through Samuel Pufendorf's On the Duty of Man and Citizen (1682), and now reach beyond the introductory material and into the actual duties of Man.  I am doing my best to understand as I go and will try to keep personal commentary to a separate piece as the logic and reasoning behind this work are of paramount importance to western civilization based on the Treaty of Westphalia and the reconciling of having a secular State as a separate but dependent domain from the Faith of Christianity as practiced in that time.  This is critical as Pufendorf creates much of the logic and lexicon that will be utilized all the way to the present day, and to understand where we have gotten to we must understand the roots that allowed us to draw sustenance for the creation of the modern world.

The section is: On man's duty to God, or on natural religion.

The basis of man's duty to God is seen to come from:

1) To have right notions of God.

2) To conform our actions to His will.

Natural religion, that is religion derived from the basis of Man's duty to God which creates the areas of theoretical propositions and practical propositions.

I must note that this formulation of knowing a system correctly, in this case man's duty to God, creates the necessity of having a theoretical understanding of the system (which is to say its underpinnings, axioms and other known systemic outlays like given interactions) and then extending those concepts into practical applications by utilizing that knowledge and working out what such a practical application will look like. This also leads to a saying attributed variously from computer scientist Jan L. A. van de Snepscheut all the way to Yogi Berra:

In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. But, in practice, there is.

This is a critical understanding of systems and how this is dealt with at the beginning of the modern Nation State is critical, and the basis starts out with God but, as seen later, not limited just to God for from the prime mover comes many effects to be dealt with.  Yet it is vital that the concept of theory put into practice for the formulation of natural religion guided by Scripture and the necessity of salvation that is so well explicitly stated in this work.

To understand what Pufendorf is looking at it is necessary to examine the axioms, or basis, of the foundations of Moral Law and the duties of man to God.  Thus I will try to paraphrase and condense so as to outline the structure of what is seen to be, what is our duties to what is seen and why that matters.  Do remember the year this was created and that this book is, itself, a condensation of a multi-volume work examining what the three realms of Law are.

From Paragraph 2 we get the axioms or givens:

1) Everyone must hold that God exists.

2) There is a supreme and first being upon which the universe depends.

3) The first two are true due to there being beginnings and ends to events and this is reflected by the very nature of the universe.

4) Claiming not to understand 1-3 is no excuse for atheism.

5) Anyone claiming the non-existence of God must not only come through with better arguments and reasoning against God's existence, but better and more convincing set of reasons for our existence.

6) The salvation of the human race depends upon worship of God.

7) Impiety stemming from those who do not agree with support of the worship of God must be punished.

These are the first, vital statements of where and how man's duty to God come about.  It is a concern that puts forth the universality of God (indeed God is beyond the universe as the universe is a creation of God as seen in 8, following) and that understanding that creations of any sort have a beginning and an end creates the pre-conditional support for God existing.  Absent better arguments against such a God coupled with a better set of reasoning and rationale for how we are in our present circumstance within such a pre-defined universe (that is it has beginning and end), the worship and support of worship of God is necessary for the salvation of mankind.

Do note that this is not just the formulation of man's duty to God but is the basis for the natural sciences.  In the natural sciences for a hypothesis to shift previously understood theory (that is a theory is more widely accepted than a fresh hypothesis) the hypothesis must do more then explain things the old theory cannot explain but must, as a pre-condition, better explain what the actual ordering of events or phenomena are and offer predictive ability so as to validate its claims.  Thus Newtonian physics was used even when it was falling apart when speeds greater than 0.5 c were reached as it offered a experimental and theoretical framework within which one got valid results.  Relativity replaced Newtonian physics by explaining all that happened within Newtonian physics and then offering a testable and verifiable framework for future experiments that then validated the hypothesis.  This same framework of not only better explain, but offer a framework for validation is laid at the feet of those wishing to replace God with something else, and it is a very, very high hurdle to pass just as it has been in the natural sciences.

It is next put down that:

8) God created the universe.  The universe, having been created, will end while God is eternal, thus nature is derived from the order of God.

9) God exercises control over the universe and human affairs which is demonstrated by the order of the universe, itself.  Having a start the universe will have an end, its order is that which is created by God.

10) God is perfect in all things and no limited set of feelings or attitudes can be attributed to God for they imply a temporal limitation upon that which is eternal.  When Scriptures speak in the way of God wanting something, it is our limited and nature oriented views that are imposed upon the message: our minds cannot conceive of the actual message and, thusly, must put it into terms that we understand.  The God of the infinite in all things is not limited, in any way, by how we must address what happens in the limited universe as we cannot come to grips with the infinite as finite individuals.  God exists in no given place, at no given time, nor at any reference point as all such are under the domain of God.

11)  There is only one God, for many Gods would only exhibit finite powers while God is unlimited in all respects.

===

Those are the givens of our universe and our place in it that we must contend with.  From these the duty of man to God is both internal and external, and honor unto God must be in both.  In our honor we must revere that which is most majestic who has created this universe and acknowledge that we act within that order to that supreme will which has brought it about.  Above all God is the greatest good within our universe, and is thusly deserving of honor and appreciation from us for that great goodness.

From this our duties follow:

- To give thanks to God for the benefits we receive from Him.

- To express His will and obey Him in all things.

- To admire and celebrate His greatness.

- To offer up prayers for goodness and to ward off evil, and to seek His signs of hope and acknowledge those as an expression of the goodness and greatness of His power.

- To swear by God's name and to keep one's oath scrupulously as that is demanded by God's omniscience and power.

- To speak respectfully of God as that is a sign of fear which is a confession of His power.  Thus we do not use God's name in vain or speak rashly about God as that is to show a lack of respect.  One is not to swear when there is no need to do so.  One is to not speak curiously and insolently about the nature of God's government as this is an attempt to limit the unlimited.

- To offer only what is excellent to God as this is to show Him honor.

- To worship God privately and openly, for it would be in shame to not show open worship and obedience to Him.

- To make every effort to observe the laws of nature as they are the creation of God and not to do so is an insult to God and His creation. 

These are the duties of Moral Law that must temper Natural Religion so as to put the basis of fear of consequences in the next life for actions taken in this one.  This is the basis for religion amongst men.

Without religion and fear of God man reverts to his natural state of being and would act in a less civil manner towards other men.  Religion is thusly seen as a civilizing method for man to treat his fellow man better through Scriptural teachings.  Man without the self-restraint necessary to worship will see himself fit to rule other men to his own pleasing and that, in turn, will displease other men who will seek to overthrow their current rulers.  Conspiracy would flourish as it would be seen as profitable for those engaged in it.  This erodes good will and trust amongst individuals as they come to fear each other as they no longer fear God.  Rulers would rule without conscience, see conspiracy about them at every turn and never fear that their actions would be punished in the next life for such ill treatment of their fellow man in this one.  Citizens would come to fear the oppressive nature of government unbridled by any inhibitions of those running it.

From this view atheism is not seen as merely misguided but the pathway to losing one's conscience and moral underpinnings as they no longer fear God.  It is the lawless nature that atheism puts forward that then creates the decline of justice and orderliness of the civil law as laws are put in place by rulers to safeguard themselves against their fellow man and impose tyrannical rule over man.

===

Thus ends the overview of man's duty to God.

To properly appreciate the arguments that Samuel Pufendorf puts forward it is necessary to understand the context and overview the the system his is enlightening.  Agree or disagree with the overall system view, as you will, but this served as the first generation of thought upon which all later Western Civilization would form.

Thus I present it dispassionately so as to outline the system, its underpinnings and outlook.

What is presented is foundational and a major shift from how the order of society worked leading up to the 30 Years War as it puts the onus upon keeping civil society not with the rulers nor even with the Church, but upon you as the individual and your relationship to the Divine.  As our civil law is based upon the moral precepts of man as he understands religion when applied to himself, then he will govern himself (singularly and in plural) differently than when it is a top-down affair.  Here, at the review of this new order promulgated from the Great Peace of Westphalia we are given the greatest understanding of our role in the world: we self-govern to create a just moral order.

You are the point of God's creation.

And it is upon You that the very foundations of society, civil law and our understanding of each other as natural beings resides.  Heaven will not help you if you seek to have government do what is necessary to be civilized for you.