The discussion started here:
https://www.farsightprime.com/forums/general/72084-understanding-corporations#post-406877
Quote from André:
"You should think what you define as "natural" and what you define as "law"."
I do. Natural or nature is that which precedes the will of an individual. Law is every rule that cannot be changed by individuals. For example, if you create a bird, you use natural law to do so. In other words: You had the idea of a certain kind of bird, but you didn't invent the concept of the bird. If you think you are the inventor or creator of nature, it's like building a sand castle and then claiming you have invented sand.
"but the necessity for the bird to be in a metal cage instead of a planetary cage isn't necessarily defined by the bird, but by whoever created the bird"
That's exactly my point: It's an artifical or fake necessity made up by a being for arbitrary reasons. Why would one invent a bird, which purpose is to fly freely through the skies, and then put it in a cage? It's like inventing a car that will never drive. You can do that, but if you do, you contradict the very idea of what a car or a bird is. In doing so, all you say is: I control creation, even if it means to render it useless. It's a form of bragging about how good you are at limiting freedom instead of expanding it.
"The bird's idea of what is "natural" and what is "necessity" is just the perspective of the bird in his limited world."
Okay, so let's talk about individual beings that are gifted with free will. It's part of the beings nature that it can act upon free will decisions, in other words, free will is a necessity not based on opinion, but on the identity of the being (like flying is part of the identity of the bird). You wouldn't gift a being with free will and then deprive it of free will, unless you're a sadist.
"Natural law, if it is a law, is not necessarily the highest law in the greater scheme of things."
That's exactly what it is, by definition.
"It's only your belief."
No, it's not my belief. Natural law brings consequences independent of individual belief. That's the purpose. If it wouldn't be that way, everything would work like a dream where you can do whatever you want. Natural law is the dividing line between a dream (where we come from) and a limited reality (universe).
For example, think of a universe that has no water in it. The law of that universe prohibits water, resulting in an instance of nature that doesn't know water. In such a universe, there would be no oceans, no fish, you get it. A fish from another universe wouldn't be able to survive in that universe, because one of the necessities of the fish's nature isn't met.
"I'm not interested to spend more time discussing opinions."
Than you need to do science, which is the discipline of searching for and understanding natural law.
Interesting that you felt a need to escalate our brief discussion to a larger audience, and showcase your opinions and your obvious ego for everyone to see. If anything, this attitude denounces your limitations, not mine. You just want attention and validation. Me, on the other hand, I don't care what you and other people think. If I wanted attention, I would take the time to list my credentials, academic and professional background, and scientific peer-reviewed publications to boast how qualified I am to talk about science, and rub it on your face. But again, I don't care what you and others think.
Of course I want attention, because I have information to share. That's not a bad thing.
And I care for opinions because I care for truth and not all opinions are correct. Do you think what I'm saying is incorrect? You're always free to counter with an actual argument.