I have a few easy questions that I'm actually kind of ashamed to not really have a grasp on, so I figured they'd fit best in the newbie section.
First, common law. I've heard and been taught a little about common law, but never really in relation to anything else. How does Libertarianism and natural law and this countries foundation line up with natural law? Were any of these really 'based' on common law? Was common law really 'based' on any of these?
Second, do Libertarians generally have any agreeance on the "foundation" of this countries originating governing documents, namely the Constitution? I've kind of been under the impression that it was actually a fairly unique system of the time, attempting to incorporate strong points of several different government types, but ultimately being founded on 'natural law' and, dare I say, "Christian principles."
Righteous government, or the righteous lack thereof, is not the producer of a righteous society, it is the product of one.
You can't have my guns, but I'd be glad to give you my bullets...
I have read this 3 times and I can't understand your questions. I'd like to help if I can. Maybe you could be more specific and re-phrase?
Well, these "few easy questions" turn out to be neither few nor easy to answer without assuming a bit of a historic background at least.
The first question seems to be what is the common denominator between libertarianism, natural law and this countries foundation, and what connection, if any, existst to "common law"?
A short answer to this might be, that libertarianism, or better liberalism(in the global meaning of the word) is based on the idea of Individualism rather than collectivism. The priniple idea of liberalism is that rights are possed by individuals only and that collectives e.g.groups can only have rights that they have been granted by individuals. Collectivism on the other hand claims that there are rights of the collective or group, that supercede individual rights. In short, the group has rights out of itself. The basis of the rights theory of individualism has been the "natural rights" philosophy, introduced in to the western civilisation by Thomas Aquinas, but based on the philosophy of the antic greeks, mainly Aristotele.
Natural rights, or natural law, states (like math states that one and one is two), that a single human being is independent in term of the means it chooses at any given event. It does not say that every individual has the same means to choose from (an often misunderstood fact) but that every human being chooses the means that he/she things are available to achieve the goals he/she is going after. The ideas of John Locke are based on this assumption which merge quite well with christian beliefs, especially the idea that every human being is only responsible to god.
Common law was the body of law in england. The roots might go back to the dark ages. After the magna charta, in which the King agreed to be judged by the same laws than anyone else, common law prospered in england. BTW, the magna charta was pressed on the KIng by the barons and had no meaning for the peasantry at the time. However, the idea that the King was not only the lawgiver but also bound to the very laws he issued, gave rise to the principle of equality under the law, which was a new idea at the time and for a long time to come. This kind of equality under the law influenced the common law. Outside of england, and the english colonies, however, there was no such thing as a common law and the foundation of the law and justice was still the roman codex and, more important the independent will of the ruler.
So, the answer to the question if common law was based on liberalism or natural law, is no, it wasn't but it was influenced by it.
Now to second. there is no agreeance on the origination of the governing documents of this country. The reason is that they did not came out of the blue but where a bunch of different documents with a lot of comromise in them. The constitution was so much unliked by the generation of the founders, that the bill of rights had to be added to it. It is certainly right, that liberal ideas had a great impact on the constitution but it is equally clear that old ideas of royal power influenced the constitution heavily.
Christian principles that made it into the "governing documents" where within the Lockean view (Self ownership, property rights). At that time(when the constitution was written) christian principles (despite the christian principles of the quakers in Pennsylvania) mirrored basically puritan theocracy, which was closer to the royal justice than to freedom to say the least.
Bottomline, The Constitution was a "fairly unique system at the time" but no way the outcome of a pure natural rights, liberalistic mindset of the founders. Yet, natural rights and liberalism never before had such an important impact on legislation.
To learn about the history of the american foundation, read, or listen to, Murray Rothbards conceived in liberty (availabe here).
Hope that helsp to raise 100,000 more questions
In the begining there was nothing, and it exploded.
Terry Pratchett (on the big bang theory)
Liberty Student, I might try to rephrase the questions later, after I've done some more research and/or thought about them more so that maybe I can help make them make more sense.
Nhaag, I will probably be getting that book, along with a few others here that I think I will enjoy and learn from.