I think many have heard of “natural law.” This is the idea that each of us has a birthright to something, something that cannot be overturned by laws and decrees because of its natural origin. There are different definitions of this law and different theories about it, but in general, it is “the right to oneself” or “the right of self-ownership.” Each of us by definition owns our body and our life. From this follows the property right to the resources you use (in Rome, property was considered an extension of your body) and much else.
Despite the apparent abstractness of this concept, it has urgent practical significance. After all, the only alternatives to natural law are legal positivism (only what state bodies enact is law) or the idea that law is a contract. The dominant views today are the latter two, with an emphasis on positivism. As a result, various glaring state practices such as “military conscription” or “victimless crimes” appear lawful in the eyes of many people, and consequently, they exist painlessly, destroying lives and causing enormous damage to society.
It seems to me that one of the problems here is that supporters of natural law often define their positions incorrectly. The matter often looks as if “natural law” is some kind of declaration, a wish, a want. That is, we believe that “people are free and equal.” But others believe otherwise. If only the state adhered to natural law, then everyone would live well; if only judges remembered natural law, it would be wonderful; and if legislators were also aware of it, it would be paradise on earth. In this sense, the doctrine of natural law does not differ from other wishes in the form of positivism, and the entire dispute is only about whose wish is better.
In reality, the situation looks somewhat different. Natural law is a foundation we discover after the fact. It is not an invention or a wish. Euclid hardly invented geometry. He simply described its foundations. That is, certain statements, violating which one cannot use the system.
Law existed for thousands of years before people thought about what lies at its foundation and why it works. The same happened (much later) with economics. People discovered (and continue to do so) universal patterns that underlie these phenomena. And if you try to ignore them in your activities, you should not expect good results.
In the case of legal relations, one of the foundations is what is called “natural law.” This is not difficult to see. Let’s consider: for what set of situations do statements like “all people are born free and equal in their rights” have meaning? Do they have meaning in communication with friends or neighbors? Obviously not. All of this has at least some meaning only within the framework of legal relations.
Opponents of natural law love to smirk, “Go tell a bear about your rights.” And here they are absolutely right. A bear is not a participant in legal relations. But people in certain situations are. And natural law is the foundation of these relations.
For an example, let’s take such a fundamental legal principle as formal equality of parties. Legal relations can exist only if the arbiter proceeds in his activities from the assumption that the parties are equal within the framework of the rules and procedures he uses. He may be interested in the characteristics (that is, inequality) of these parties only if they are relevant to the substance of the case. Otherwise, the system does not work. That’s all.
At the foundation of this principle lies the idea that your “selves” are independent and equal units, meaning the same natural law with its self-ownership.
Essentially, the idea of natural law is very simple. And the statements “a person is free from birth” and “a person belongs to himself” and other similar ones are merely an attempt to formulate ideally the fact that people are independent of the system of legal relations, meaning that it does not generate their goals or direct their behavior. Outside the system of legal relations, these statements are meaningless.