"Hey! Who do you think you are? You can't just make up your own laws!"
Funny that you mention that. That's exactly what your nation-state is doing:
That's what every nation-state is saying, all day, every day. You can watch them do it. They broadcast it on TV.
"Because they have the authority to! You don't!"
No, they don't either. Nation-states do not have the authority to make law. The proof is here.
"Ok, I read that, and you make some good points about nation-states lacking authority. I'll have to think about that. Thanks for stimulating my mind. But in the meantime, that still doesn't give YOU the right to make laws! I don't claim to know who or what can rightfully make laws, but it certainly isn't YOU, you random-person-on-the-internet you!"
Quite correct. We aren't making any laws.
"Then what the @#%& is this website about?"
We didn't make the law - the law already existed. We're just reporting it.
"Same difference! You're arguing semantics!"
No, it's not the same. Your nation-states are admitting to you that they consider themselves the source of law. They even have dates of passage on their so-called "laws" - they admit that their "law" didn't exist before they declared it.
But what we're saying is that the law has always existed. All we're doing is describing something that's already there.
"And what gives you, of all people, the right to do so?"
What gave Gallileo the right to look at the sky?
What gave Bohr the right to look at the atom?
What gave Watson and Crick the right to look at DNA?
What gave Newton the right to look at math and physics?
Anyone who looks in a certain place can see what's in that place. It doesn't matter who you are.
And anyone who sees it can report it to others. It doesn't matter who you are.
"And where did you look?"
At natural law.
"How did you find it? Where exactly are you looking to see this?"
At logic. At Reason. At cause and effect. At empathy. At nature. At truth in meditation.
"These are all abstract things. They mean different things to different people."
Yet there are laws that are consistent, no matter who is looking.
"Abstract concepts, like the ones listed above, can't have consistent laws. Only real, physical things can. You're not looking through a microscope... or a telescope. You don't have any equipment I don't have. If you don't have instruments, you're not privy to any information that I'm not, and you're not doing science."
Newton didn't need technological equipment to work out the laws of mathematics, gravity, trigonometry, and calculus. All he needed was his brain, a sheet of paper and quill to record his ideas with, and a tranquil space to ponder in. That's it.
It's the same here. Newton studied the mathematical properties of motion, mass, distance, and time - we study the logical properties of power, choice, intention, goodness, morality, rights, reason, and love. They have relationships with each other - just like the physical forces - and these relationships can be represented symbolically - just like mathematics - and understood, just like any science when studied.
"I just don't believe that. It sounds woo-woo. Can you prove that any of that stuff exists? Can you prove that morality exists, independently of social norms? Can you prove that right and wrong exist prior to us defining them?"
Yes, as a matter of fact we can. We've done so here.