, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Quick post today. The subject matter is the LEX ARMATICUS.

A secondary consideration today is to introduce my loyal readers to Curt Doolittle (h/t Cold Standing). Curt describes himself as a philosopher of Natural Law, in the Western Aristocratic tradition”. He works at the Propertarian Institute and the link to his website I have placed in the right hand margin and can be found at propertarianism.com (see here).

Before we go on, a word to my readers. Over the last 6 months, I have introduced a wide range of secular personalities on this blog. The reason behind this is due to the work that they are producing, runs parallel to the mission of this blog. As my loyal readers know, the mission of this blog is chronicling the “Restoration of all thing in Christ”. And as we know, the Restoration can not be limited to just the Ecclesiastical sphere of our human existence. The reason being: God created the UNIVERSE, so when we say “the Restoration of all things…”, we literally have to mean “the Restoration of A.L.L. things…”.


To help understand this quite obvious if not always apparent aspect of our daily existence, your humble blogger has defined a general principle, namely the LEX ARMATICUS. The foundational principle of the LEX ARMATICUS is defined as:

Those individuals and institutions that comply to the et Invisibilium, will remain a part of the Visibisium Omnium. Those that do not, will be consigned to the trash heap of history.

Where the following definitions hold:

Visibisium Omnium – all the material “things” that we can identify with our senses (touch, sight, feel, smell, taste)

et Invisibilium – all the non-material laws and processes that regulate the visibilium omnium (e.g. the laws of physics – classical mechanics and quantum mechanics, laws of mathematics, rules of logic, etc.)

Or to put is another way, the LEX ARMATICUS is nothing more than a restatement of NATRUAL LAW.

And now we have come full circle, since Curt Doolittle is a “philosopher of Natural Law, in the Western Aristocratic tradition”. 

Below is a post that appeared on the Propertarianism website that provides a quite elegant and concise definition thread and history of Natural Law and its place in Western thought.

I have also inserted text explaining the overlooked school of the Scholastic rationalists (see here) after ‘The Christians — A Utopian Supernatural Law’ entry. Unfortunately Curt did not provide this information, information which would have provided a more accurate picture of Catholic “rationalists”, an often ignored if not misunderstood school of philosophical thought. It was in fact the Catholic rationalists of this period that are responsible for the development of such things as higher learning (the university), the scientific method, the subjective theory of value, etc. and are the forerunners to the secular rationalists of the post Enlightenment era.

In the Catholic Church, the influence of the Scholastic rationalists was brought to an end with the the neo-Modernist revolution at Vatican II. This is explained in the seminal essay written by Dr. John Lamont (see here) which I am continuously referencing on this blog.

And as I have explained in a previous post (see here), it is not the neo-Modernists that brought about the suppression of “rationalism” not only in the Catholic Church, but in society in general, as much as the post-Modernists.

This diagnosis of the general state of Western Civilization is now being observed, identified and understood by not only the Catholics (A.K.A. Traditionalists), such as the Society of St. Pius X and the SSPX breakaway communities in the Ecclesia Dei Commission, but by the secular thinkers as well.

And to tie this all together, this is the reason why I am continuously referencing people like Stefan Molyneux, Dr. Jordan Peterson, Dr. Duke Pesta and others, who exhibit this understanding and are speaking out about it.

So when you, dear reader are reading or watching the products of the work done by these individuals, please notice the general themes and underlying concepts and ideas, while overlooking the occasional anti-Catholic or anti-religious slights. To understand what these people are saying provides us with an insight into a large swath of what the general Western population is listening to and thinking. Coincidentally, the large swath is the same people that voted for Brexit and got Mr. Donald J. Trump elected as the 45th President of the United States of America.

PS Now after you reading the below, go back and watch the Molyneux video that I have embedded at the top of this post.

And after watching it, tell me that he is not a neo-Scholastic rationalist?

And now to the Natural Law post… (see here)


What Do We Meany by Natural Law?

A Little History of Natural Law – From The Good, to the Moral, to the Rational, to the Scientific.

What is Law?

Law, in its generic sense, is a body of rules of action or conduct prescribed by controlling authority, and having binding legal force. That which must be obeyed and followed by citizens subject to sanctions or legal consequences is a law (Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 884).  Jurisprudence is the philosophy of law and how the law developed.

Natural Law is a broad and often misapplied term tossed around various schools of philosophy, science, history, theology, and law. Immanuel Kant reminded us, ‘What is law?’ may be said to be about as embarrassing to the jurist as the well-know question ‘What is Truth?’ is to the logician.

Natural Law – A Moral Theory of Jurisprudence
Natural Law evolved as a moral theory of jurisprudence, which maintains that law should be based on morality and ethics. Natural Law holds that the law is based on what’s “correct.” Natural Law is “discovered” by humans through the use of reason and choosing between good and evil. Therefore, Natural Law finds its power in discovering certain universal standards in morality and ethics.

The Greeks – Living In Correspondence with The Natural World
The Greeks — Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle emphasized the distinction between “nature” (physis, φúσις) and “law,” “custom,” or “convention” (nomos, νóμος). What the law commanded varied from place to place, but what was “by nature” should be the same everywhere. Aristotle (BC 384—322) is considered by many to be the father of “natural law.” In Rhetoric, he argues that aside from “particular” laws that each people has set up for itself, there is a “common law” or “higher law” that is according to nature (Rhetoric 1373b2–8).

The StoicsA Rational and Purposeful Law
The development of natural law theory continued in the Hellenistic school of philosophy, particularly with the Stoics. The Stoics pointed to the existence of a rational and purposeful order to the universe. The means by which a rational being lived in accordance with this cosmic order was considered natural law. Unlike Aristotle’s “higher law,” Stoic natural law was indifferent to the divine or natural source of that law. Stoic philosophy was very influential with Roman jurists such as Cicero, thus playing a significant role in the development of Roman legal theory.

The Christians — A Utopian Supernatural Law
Augustine (AD 354—430) equates natural law with man’s Pre-Fall state. Therefore, life according to nature is no longer possible and mankind must instead seek salvation through the divine law and Christ’s grace. Gratian (12th century) reconnected the concept of natural law and divine law. “The Human Race is ruled by two things: namely, natural law and usages (mos, moris, mores). Natural law is what is contained in the law and the Gospel. By it, each person is commanded to do to others what he wants done to himself and is prohibited from inflicting on others what he does not want done to himself.” (Decretum, D.1 d.a.c.1; ca. 1140 AD)

Scholastic rationalism – (The revolt against abject mysticism)

Scholasticism sprang from the study of dialectic in the schools. The most decisive battle of Scholasticism was that which it waged in the twelfth century against the mystics who condemned the use of dialectic. The distinguishing mark of Scholasticism in the age of its highest development is its use of the dialectical method. It is, therefore, a matter, once more, for surprise, to find Scholasticism accused of undue subservience to authority and of the neglect of reason. Rationalism is a word which has various meanings. It is sometimes used to designate a system which, refusing to acknowledge the authority of revelation, tests all truth by the standard of reason. (Ed note: what is known as ‘scientism” presently) In this sense, the Scholastics were not Rationalists. The Rationalism of Scholasticism consists in the conviction that reason is to be used in the elucidation of spiritual truth and in defense of the dogmas of Faith. It is opposed to mysticism, which distrusted reason and placed emphasis on intuition and contemplation. In this milder meaning of the term, all the Scholastics were convinced Rationalists, the only difference being that some, like Abelard and Roscelin, were too ardent in their advocacy of the use of reason, and went so far as to maintain that reason can prove even the supernatural mysteries of Faith, while others, like St. Thomas, moderated the claims of reason, set limits to its power of proving spiritual truth, and maintained that the mysteries of faith could not be discovered and cannot be proved by unaided reason.

The whole Scholastic movement, therefore, is a Rationalistic movement in the second sense of the term Rationalism. The Scholastics used their reason; they applied dialectic to the study of nature, of human nature and of supernatural truth. Far from depreciating reason, they went as far as man can go — some modern critics think they went too far — in the application of reason to the discussion of the dogmas of Faith. They acknowledged the authority of revelation, as all Christian philosophers are obliged to do. They admitted the force of human authority when the conditions of its valid application were verified. But in theology, the authority of revelation did not coerce their reason and in philosophy and in natural science they taught very emphatically that the argument from authority is the weakest of all arguments. They did not subordinate reason to authority in any unworthy sense of that phrase. It was an opponent of the Scholastic movement who styled philosophy “the handmaid of theology”, a designation which, however, some of the Schoolmen accepted to mean that to philosophy belongs the honourable task of carrying the light which is to guide the footsteps of theology. One need not go so far as to say, with Barthélemy Saint Hilaire, that “Scholasticism, in its general result, is the first revolt of the modern spirit against authority.” Nevertheless, one is compelled by the facts of history to admit that there is more truth in that description than in the superficial judgment of the historians who describe Scholasticism as the subordination of reason to authority.

The Enlightenment Thinkers (AD 1600 – 2016) – A Rational Natural Law – From Property
(Bacon/English, Locke/British, Jefferson/Anglo-German,

The 20th Century Thinkers – The Reduction of Social Science to Property Rights
(Hayek/Austrian, Rothbard/Jewish, Hoppe/German)

21st Century Thinkers – The Science of Cooperation (In Markets)
The attempt to mature Stoic, Roman, Germanic, and British empirical law into a formal logic wherein all rights are reduced to property rights,  and where such law is strictly constructed from the prohibition on the imposition of costs – costs that would cause retaliation and increase the costs, risk, and likelihood of cooperation.  Impediments to cooperation. Where cooperation creates prosperity in a division of perception, cognition, knowledge, labor, and advocacy.

In other words, natural law, evolved from empirical common law, as the formal category(property), logic (construction), empiricism(from observation), and science (continuous improvement) of human cooperation.

In this view, ethics, morality, economics, law, politics constitute the science of cooperation: social science. Everything else is justification, advocacy, literature, and propaganda.