[Anaesthetic Toy]

Of those two options I will say natural law theory. My opinion is that an unjust law can have no ethical substance. Such a thing in enforcement is tyranny, and an assault upon the ethical authority of the legal institution in general. Blatantly unjust laws should be paid no respect whatsoever.

[Doomhammer]

Natural law, of course.

[Adam_Smith]

Ingliz agreed with what:

Natural rights is simple nonsense: natural and imprescriptible rights, rhetorical nonsense — nonsense upon stilts.

But I disagree. I favor natural law because legal positivism is just oppression upon sneakers, (until it acquires enough support for jack boots).

Purely positive law is the product of pure power politics and, sooner or later, comes to rest solely upon an alleged right of the strong to rule over the weak.

No. I don't believe that what's just is natural. That implies that humans are inherently just, which is obviously false.

Human nature considered by itself is not the whole story. Add to the human natural impulses for survival, procreation, security and comfort the natural facts of the finite limits of natural resourses, the benefits of cooperative action as well as those of individual initiative and how all these factors interrelate and you begin to construct the philosophical basis for just natural law. Conversely, ignoring any of these relevant realities or failing to reason out the manner of their reconciliations will inevitably result in a flawed philosophy doomed to generate some form or other of injustice. Hence, the effective equivalence of natural law and justice.