Do remember that I was not talking about the king himself, but an official of the Church.
The enumeration by men only serves the purpose of laying out an outline for men's laws, which rights will a society defend, not create, defend. Natural law does not support the equality of men.
Men still define that which is to be defended.
When too many men believe their rights are derived from the state, the results you are seeing are to be expected.
Definitely. The rights have to be recognized as inviolate and higher than the state. Whether they are god-given or natural is irrelevant as long as those in power respect the source.
Monarchs & church officials have something in common, they're human. Don't try to equate opinions of men about God's will with God's will.
Men still define that which is to be defended.
Yes, of course.
The rights have to be recognized as inviolate and higher than the state. Whether they are god-given or natural is irrelevant as long as those in power respect the source.
Let's say I accept your premise, god-given & natural sources are interchangable. Beyond Ogg & his club, cite proof that it is in the nature of men to believe in individual liberty. I would argue that acceptance of servitude is just as natural, maybe even more natural. We partition ourselves into classes & accept our roles within our internalized class. Geeks, freaks & jocks (am I dating myself?) were the class labels used when I was a kid. White collar, professional, blue collar, working class, welfare class... even if we want better we accept our roles.
"antiRepublicrat" - standing on the outside shaking your fist at the herd mentality of your fellow citizens will not change their nature.