The origin and authority for positive law?

[SwissMrs&Pitchfire]

Positive laws are the laws that man develops as an interpretation of the natural law and asserts within the covenants of government and society. But where did positive law come from? What is it's origin and claim to authority?

Collectivists assert that positive law was created the moment that two individuals combined their rights to create a greater collective right to assert in governance over the whole. I disagree as rights are inalienable, nontransferable. The majorities supposed collective rights (no such thing) cannot be greater than the solitary individual's rights. The majority has no right to violate the rights of the minority. Rights are inalienable. It is never okay to violate them, we don't have the right.

I assert that the origin of the positive law is founded in the omnipotent authority of God delegated to man at the time that Adam and Eve left the Garden of Eden (was it the Garden of Eden or was the Garden Eden?).

[SwissMrs&Pitchfire]

How do you cede your rights? I mean seriously. We act as if they are donuts or firearms or real estate. They are non transferable. They are the iron laws of God by which all will be judged (they are immovable, rock solid). When we supposedly cede these rights (or a portion of them) it would be reasonable to ask if suddenly our claim to life, liberty, and happiness were halved or abandoned to the benevolent provider as well? That's the socialistic, humanistic, big brother, collectivist lie. We retain our rights, we do not transfer in whole nor in part (for we cannot). We simply act within the scope of the authority with the power in us to secure our rights by covenant.

I think we do delegate our rights to government

I disagree, I think, that we delegate the administration of our rights and the mediation regarding those rights to government. Rights by nature cannot be delegated, they are not tasks to be performed. How can I delegate my life to another? I can only delegate the administration of my right to life ergo to protect it, but even that is done by individual and not collective right.

I have taken issue with the Quote by president Benson before and will again. It is a semantical point that I know he would agree with, but this is not the point he was making. I understand fully what he is saying, but I think that their is a semantical flaw in that the sheriff acts to secure his own rights and not by proxy the rights of others (bear with me here). We all have a right to enforce the natural law as God dictates it unto us. Any more or less than precisely what is dictated (following every command with exactness) is evil. We have the right of citizens arrest, of self defense of life, liberty, property, and I assert virtue. As President Benson says, if one has the right, so do all, my only contention is that that does not constitute a collectivist right but the individual right enjoyed by all. (before you jump at me consider this)

If I see a neighbor, a friend, a stranger, being abused or otherwise ill treated, do I turn a blind eye to it? Why or why not? Personally I hope not. My reasoning is that it offends me to see it, to have it exist in my presence and my society, to protect myself and mine from such evil influences. I may also act to preserve the mutual protection pact, but I act not empowered by the pact (it is paper, an ideal, it has no power) perhaps authorized by the act (and I consent that we may delegate authority in this manner) but by virtue of my own right and not the assailed's (I have no right to their life, liberty, property, virtue. If I did I could take it without recourse and so could the assailant!!!)

I agree with what President Benson was saying, just not the entirety of the wording he used to support it.

[Darren]

Positive laws are the laws that man develops as an interpretation of the natural law and asserts within the covenants of government and society. But where did positive law come from? What is it's origin and claim to authority?

Natural Law = God’s Law

All Law comes from God. Law is the very act of looking to God.

There is no such thing as Negative Law. The opposite of Law is the individual act of “Not Looking to God.” The controls based on not looking to God is what humanists call Policy.

Collectivists assert that positive law was created the moment that two individuals combined their rights to create a greater collective right to assert in governance over the whole. I disagree as rights are inalienable, nontransferable.

SwissMrs&Pitchfire, I agree with you about rights being unalienable and nontransferable.

Law is created the moment one individual looks to God (that act happened before our birth, All children look to God). It is the act of not looking to God that creates the environment necessary of enforcing the Law. Common Law is created the moment when an Individual with his unalienable rights joins with other like minded Individuals in working together in their Looking to God.

Policy is control used to try to suppress unalienable rights.

The majorities supposed collective rights (no such thing)

Common Law or Common Looking, maintains Gospel Rights. The Common Law is a group of like minded individuals working together ie. a Municipal Corporation is a Common Law Township/Parish/Tenship.

When a group of people is governed by Policy then it is a City (A "Civi" as in Civil).

When a group of people is lead by Law (looking to God" then it is called a By/Town (A Ten or Tenship).

cannot be greater than the solitary individual's rights.

The Freeman enjoys rights fully. The Common Law is applied to the Freeman only when and if the Freeman has violated his Oath to Look to God. If he is accused of violating his Oath then a 12 man Jury, just like what happens in a Stake Presidents Court, is convened to try the man in regard to his obeying his Oath.

The majority has no right to violate the rights of the minority.

The Jury by their religious opinions under the guidance of the Judge declares the Common Law, the salient application of God’s Law.

Bruce Wydner wrote:
The way that the uniform, identical, ancient, ancestral Law of the Germanic Peoples operated among the Three Germanic Tribes of the Angles, the Saxons, and the Jutes, who established England, is summarized in the first volume of Winston S. Churchill’s, “A History of the English-speaking Peoples.” That first volume is entitled, “The Birth of Britain.” The second chapter in that volume is entitled, “The English Common Law.” That Chapter ends with these words:

“The Liberties of Englishmen rested not upon any enactment of the State, but upon immemorial, slow-growing Custom, declared by Juries of Free Men, as they gave their Verdicts case by case in open court.”

This uniform, identical, ancient, ancestral Law of the Germanic Peoples was declared by the Twelve-man Juries of the Germanic Peoples, as they met to try people in relation to their Rights, throughout all of Germanic Europe, in the “Hundreds” (named with the Romanesque name, “Counties,” in some places in Europe and in the USA) of those Peoples. As they have done for nearly two Millenniums now, these Juries conducted these Trials every 3 Months (in “County Courthouses” in the USA).

Rights are inalienable. It is never okay to violate them, we don't have the right.

AMEN.

I assert that the origin of the positive law is founded in the omnipotent authority of God delegated to man at the time that Adam and Eve left the Garden of Eden (was it the Garden of Eden or was the Garden Eden?).

I must add that “delegated to man” means that God told us to look to him in all that we do. Agreed? Yes! Then we are working together by the Law. See you in Zion.

God Bless,
Darren

[SwissMrs&Pitchfire]

Thank you Darren, for tying that together!

And I would add to answer my own question that the Garden was Eastward in Eden, hence the Garden of Eden and not the Garden Eden. That begs the question what was the rest of the land if Eden must be distinguished from other lands and the Garden there from other gardens?