Our ancestors established a system of government based on nature’s law (natural law being an observation thereof). Nature’s law reflects morality and Christ’s teachings. Morality and sentiment are secondary observations (ultimate trappings), fluid at best and negatively migrate depending government administrators. Good Christians and good citizens, temporally arbitrarily, exist by personal perception.

Earthly governments are philosophies / religions of power and control, mostly engaged in a few usurping the many. As a rule, the greater the country's governmental application (the few) practices totalitarian (cause), the less the many have (effect).

Too, too funny, (-; I like it a lot ;-)

I like it a lot, way too accurate, way too often.

Got to love collectivism.

🤪 I like it a lot.

Sorta off topic / misdirection. The Constitution was written to limit a government body twice removed from individual sovereigns. The federal government was to be a union of States in republican form at the laws of nature and of nature's God. I'm not personally aware (I'm probably mistaken) of a constitutional provision that requires obedience to a specific clause?

I like it a lot — accurate beyond debate.

When considering Constitutional law ("the laws of nature and of nature's God" (Declaration of Independence)) and an antithetical philosophy of legal positivism, anti-educated politicians come in all sorts, shapes and sizes of professional preparation.

Kinda sorta almost accurate. Freedom is as inherent in the sentient being as is individual sovereignty, inalienable rights and liberty at nature’s law. Freedom to think is an eternal subcomponent of the broader “freedom”. Freedom to think can not be permitted or denied by corporeal man. More accurately, truth, facts, epistemology, etc. can forcibly be altered or refused from/to the sentient person changing the options within the scope of free thinking. Is free thinking really permitted (NOT more now than ever).

The lust for power in dominating others does inflame the heart, BUT, I don't believe it does so more than any other passion.

Not shooting the messenger, WAY too accurate ! Ask a layman to finitely and legally define individual sovereignty, the difference between nature's law and the philosophy of legal positivism, inalienable rights and liberty at "the laws of nature and of nature's God" (Declaration of Independence — the de jure foundation of the Constitution) and, a look of a deer lost in an oncoming vehicle's headlights would most often be the reaction. Current executives, judicature and legislators create, enforce and spread the same ignorance.

Okay, I like it — could be.

In context, probably or, maybe? Have the many times I've ben wrongly censored in court, public settings and/or otherwise permanently branded my imagination — to the point I've suffered? MMMM ?  I think a lot more understanding as to circumstance and word definition would have to be established before the quote could be fully evaluated.

Maybe / probably — in more cases than not. The quote seems to be couched in a scope of legal positivism. Nature's law or, the observation of natural law is not within the quote's envelope.

To rate or comment on the quote, "charity" must first be defined, or at least have a some sense of understanding. Traditionally, charity is a derivative of the heart that manifests love and all else that benefits others. As to the quote, if one doesn't love self, spouse, children, parents (home) it is almost assured, that person is incapable of loving beyond that.

The main issue here being skirted is the "invent and create" economic policies. Nature's law remains the ultimate controlling issue SO, when people (individually and in concert) invent and create policies within nature's law, it is a REALLY GOOD thing.

I like it. Sort of a back side glance at an off handed perspective of freedom but accurate.

Joe; “In the United States, there is no such a thing as toleration, all men have an equal right to ⋯” (Bouvier’s Law Dictionary) Within the de jure States united, each individual sovereign (an Eternal King's noble heir) inherently exudes inalienable rights and liberty at "the laws of nature and of nature's God" (Declaration of Independence). Inalienable rights, by definition, can NOT be recognized in a democracy as, at nature's law, each person's rights end at another's nose (no person has the right to injure another, no matter the majority's voice or action). Your "democracy" vs. nature's law is a misdirection / off topic ludicrous nonstarter.

👍

An update. The socialist I here spoke of just passed and to her last days, could not find it in her to forgive me for my family's charitable Thanksgiving game. Socialism is truly a religion that rots the brain, heart and soul.

👍

👍

Archer, I agree

As experienced in my travels outside the U.S., the quote stills portrays some validity.