A number of people also incorporate religious ideas into natural law theory, even as others submit more commonly to essential moral laws which may or may not be directed by religious reliance (What is Natural Law Theory, 2010). Laws are derived from a person's right to protect themselves and their property, not from the authority of the state. If law was simply anything the state said, then the notion of the regulation of law and of authenticity could not have the logic that they clearly do have the thought of events being lawful and unlawful would not have the emotional insinuation that it does have (Donald, n.d.) If laws are morally wrong then there should be some considerations given to not obeying them. But consideration should only be given to those that are really morally wrong since the ultimate goal is to protect people's rights to defend themselves and their property.

The people who have to obey the laws should be able to decide whether the laws that are in force are immoral or not and should be obeyed or not. It is important that there be a process in place though for the citizens can voice their opinions in regards to the laws that are in place. If everyone just went about doing what they wanted and when they wanted there would be no order to society at all. Discuss the advantages and consequences of civil disobedience became prevalent in society. Not having any order to society would lead to complete civil disobedience which would go against the natural law theory of order.

Evidently, some types of civilization are more normal than others. When the state tries to compel an abnormal structure of civilization, it necessitates a great quantity of coercive aggression to inflict this appearance, and the state undercuts its own unity in the course. At the time that Locke wrote, natural law was about to turn into normal law, since the state was neutralized and the people were equipped. For the most part the universal law of Locke's period was already reliable with natural law, but on some issues judges had to carry out processes to provide the appearance of common law...

A lot of common law came from Roman law, and the law of the late Roman Empire was frequently relatively different from natural law. Freedom of connection is a right under natural law but a crime according to Roman law. Under the law of the Roman Empire any connection not required was prohibited. In order to evade reject Roman law without infringing on natural law, the English courts had to carry out complicated procedures, and nowadays the fifty ninth sole privilege of the holy roman emperor still lives on in America, in the shape of the concession theory. This theory says that a corporation is a part of the state, a segment of state power in private hands. This strange and complicated legal fiction is extremely inopportune for businessmen, greatly profitable for lawyers, and is a hazardously powerful weapon in the hands of negligent bureaucrats and lawless judges (Donald, n.d.).
In the twentieth century this vision came to extensively established. People came to think that civil civilization only survived because of the state and that the state existed since its army and police were carrying weapons, and the people were not. They believed that the state carried on by force. Even those who treasured freedom, unwillingly accepted this idea as true (Donald, n.d.). The state must be in control in order to preserve the idea of a civil society in which everyone can live in peace and harmony.