The Law of Nations and the Law of Nature

In a recent post the book by Emmerich de Vattel The Law of Nations was introduced. Chapter 2 of the book discusses what a nation owes itself and it's citizens by comparing it to the law of nature.

In nature, every living creature seeks to stay alive, to preserve itself, and work toward it's own perfection. For a bird perfection may be a nest near adequate food and water sources, a bear make seek a small cave to make a den to ensure survival through the winter. For early man perfection may have been a simple shelter from the elements, food and water. In nature, if an individual fails to take the responsibility to seek perfection it puts its very survival at risk.

Each nation has the same responsibility to itself, to ensure its survival. Since nations are made up of thousands or millions of individuals, for a nation to seek its perfection, the nation must make it possible for the individuals in the nation to seek their own perfection. If a nation fails to make it possible for every individual making up the nation to seek perfection, the nation will not survive very long.

This concept furthers the concept of an agreement between the national government and the individuals of the nation. Each individual in the nation is responsible to work toward the betterment of themselves but also the betterment of the nation as a whole. The nation has the responsibility to provide anything that is essential to the individuals needed to pursue their perfection, which includes safety or security.

Since each individual has made an agreement with the whole group to support the nation, the whole group or nation has a responsibility to each individual. Vattal went on to write:

If a nation is obliged to preserve itself, it is no less obliged carefully to preserve all its members. The nation owes this to itself, since the loss even of one of its members weakens it, and is injurious to its preservation. It owes this also to the members in particular, in consequence of the very act of association; for those who compose a nation are united for their defense and common advantage; and none can justly be deprived of this union, and of the advantages he expects to derive from it, while he on his side fulfills the conditions.

I interpret this paragraph as supporting the social programs assisting those that cannot take care of themselves. That being said, I can't believe Vattal intended the massive entitlement programs that now exists and are being abused by many in the United States.

Some in our country have reached high levels of success and now live in relative luxury compared to most of us. These people often offer comments on politics but in reality have become so detached from the average person their views don't make sense to many of us. Vattal discussed the relationship of luxury and freedom and wrote:

May luxury, that pest so fatal to the manly and patriotic virtues, that minister of corruption so dangerous to liberty, never overthrow a monument that does so much honor to human nature-a monument capable of teaching kings how glorious it is to rule over a free people.

Remember Vattal wrote this during the time of empires and kings which at the time were the governments. While I don't believe we we should take that luxury from those that have attained it I do believe those people living in luxury should strive to better understand the average person before making some of the comments being made.

A great historical example of comments being made by those living in luxury occurred during the French Revolution and was attributed (perhaps mistakenly) to Marie Antoinette. When hearing the peasants had no bread to eat, she was reported to comment "Let them eat cake.". Obviously if the peasants didn't have the resources to make bread they couldn't make cake. Hopefully, if Marie Antoinette did make this comment she realized her error before her date with the guillotine at the hands of the peasants.