The Law

[osan]

http://freedomisobvious.blogspot.com...2/the-law.html

The Law


"Law" is everywhere in this modern world, and yet I find there to be little to no understanding by people of what, exactly, it is beyond some vague notion that it must be obeyed no matter what.

Indeed, it has appeared to me that even most lawyers have no explicit knowledge of what law actually is, or should be. Rather, their knowledge rests mainly in procedure and precedent. Knowing what purported "laws" say and how to use them in the various forms of professional procedures is not the same as understanding the normative definition of "law".

It is furthermore worthy to note that, so far as I have been able to discern, even the various law dictionaries miss the mark in how they define "law", a fact I find most disturbing, as should all men of sound mind and character.

For instance, the Oxford Dictionary of Law defines "law" as follows:

"law n.

1. The enforceable body of rules that govern any society. See also COMMON LAW; NATURAL LAW.

2. One of the rules making up the body of law, such as an *Act of Parliament."

Note how devoid of basic meaning is this definition. "Enforceable body of rules": enforceable by whom and by what non-arbitrary authority? There is far more amiss with definitions such as this one, and we will address those inadequacies shortly.

Meanwhile, and unfortunately, the definition of "common law" provides no help:

"common law

1. The part of English law based on rules developed by the royal courts during the first three centuries after the Norman Conquest (1066) as a system applicable to the whole country, as opposed to local customs.

2. Rules of law developed by the courts as opposed to those created by statute.

3. A general system of law deriving exclusively from court decisions."

Note how all these definitions, thus far, describe positive entities only, failing to give us a normative specification. I submit that it is precisely a normative definition of "law" is the only one that matters, for such a definition should in essence demonstrate the principle upon which law derives its just authority. More on that later.

Black's Law Dictionary fails similarly:

"LAW. That which is laid down, ordained, or established. A rule or method according to which phenomena or actions co-exist or follow each other. That which must be obeyed and followed by citizens, subject to sanctions or legal consequences, is a "law." Koenig v. Flynn, 258 N.Y. 292, 179 N. E"

Note again how it speaks to the positive rather than the normative. As with the others, it shows no superiority to the arbitrary and makes no case as to why it must be obeyed, but only that it must be on pain of sanction.

Black's does, however, appear to touch, however lightly, on a deeper character of law, but goes into no effort to elaborate:

"The earliest notion of law was not an enumeration of a principle, but a judgment in a particular case. When pro-nounced in the early ages, by a king, it was assumed to be the result of direct divine inspiration. Afterwards came the notion of a custom which a judgment affirms, or pun- ishes its breach. In the outset, however, the only au- thoritative statement of right and wrong is a judicial sen- tence rendered after the fact has occurred. It does not presuppose a law to have been violated, but is enacted for the first time by a higher form into the judge's mind at the moment of adjudication."

Sadly, my suspicion here is that "principle" is being misused such that the arbitrary will of a legislature is being wholly confused with non-arbitrary principle. This, of course, is a catastrophic error, and yet it makes perfect sense that those in the "legal profession" would accept it because it serves the purposes of those in corrupted political power far more satisfyingly that would any adherence to actual and immutable principle. The former affords lawmakers and top-level employers of law (mostly governmental officials) virtually limit-free prerogative to churn out whatever body of outrage-du-jour, whereas the latter stands to tightly restrict and narrow their avenues of legislative choice.

Continuing, law.com's law dictionary defines "law" as follows:

"law n.

1) any system of regulations to govern the conduct of the people of a community, society or nation, in response to the need for regularity, consistency and justice based upon collective human experience.

2) n. a statute, ordinance or regulation enacted by the legislative branch of a government and signed into law, or in some nations created by decree without any democratic process. This is distinguished from "natural law," which is not based on statute, but on alleged common understanding of what is right and proper (often based on moral and religious precepts as well as common understanding of fairness and justice). 3) n. a generic term for any body of regulations for conduct, including specialized rules (military law), moral conduct under various religions and for organizations, usually called "bylaws.""

Once again, the definition fails to satisfy the central valid purpose of law, which is to codify principled truths that apply to all men. The opening words, "any system", are most troubling, implying that arbitrariness is not an issue with which one ought concern himself, save perhaps that it be employed to one's benefit at the possible detriment of all others.

Note the reference to "Natural Law", which at least hints at principled bases.

Thefreedictionary.com's law dictionary offers nothing substantively different:

"A body of rules of conduct of binding legal force and effect, prescribed, recognized, and enforced by controlling authority.
In U.S. law, the word law refers to any rule that if broken subjects a party to criminal punishment or civil liability. Laws in theUnited States are made by federal, state, and local legislatures, judges, the president, state governors, and administrative agencies."

As we see, this also suffers the selfsame deficiencies.

The only relief I have thus far found lies in the definitions of Bouvier's Law Dictionary of 1856 vintage:

"LAW. In its most general and comprehensive sense, law signifies a rule of action; and this term is applied indiscriminately to all kinds of action; whether animate or inanimate, rational or irrational. 1 Bl. Com. 38. In its more confined sense, law denotes the rule, not of actions in general, but of human action or conduct.


2. Law is generally divided into four principle classes, namely; Natural law, the law of nations, public law, and private or civil law. When considered in relation to its origin, it is statute law or common law. When examined as to its different systems it is divided into civil law, common law, canon law. When applied to objects, it is civil, criminal, or penal. It is also divided into natural law and positive law. Into written law, lex scripta; and unwritten law, lex non scripta. Into law merchant, martial law, municipal law, and foreign law. When considered as to their duration, laws are immutable and arbitrary or positive; when as their effect, they are prospective and retrospective. These will be separately considered."

At least Bouvier's honestly and competently recognizes that "law" as practiced is every bit as likely to be arbitrary and irrational as it is to be otherwise.

Bouvier's goes on:

"LAW, ARBITRARY. An arbitrary law is one made by the legislator simply because he wills it, and is not founded in the nature of things; such law, for example, as the tariff law, which may be high or low. This term is used in opposition to immutable."

Note the reference to immutability. Anything called "law" should be immutable, otherwise it is not law. Natural Law bears this quality, which is perhaps a main reason it is discredited by the corrupt and ignorant who peddle unpublished agendas to the unwitting.

Why do we refer to the "law of gravity", or the "laws of physics"? We do so because they are, for all practical purposes, immutable. There is no changing or eliminating gravity or the ways in which matter and energy behave. We must, perforce, deal with these aspects of reality on theirterms, and not our own. While there may be many ways to coax matter and energy to do things in what seems to us an artificial manner, we are nonetheless operating upon them by their rules, and not our own. The principles by which matter, energy, and gravity operate are effectively immutable.

So it must be with "law", and here I shall distinguish what we shall come to know as "real law" v. "false law" (see Arbitrary Law, above) by capitalizing the noun. Therefore, "Law" shall mean proper law; law as nearly no man understands it and the legal institutions of the world would have it never be.

Before proceeding, it perhaps serves us well to look at one more law definition, once again from Bouvier's:

"LAW, CANON. The canon law is a body of Roman ecclesiastical law, relative to such matters as that church either has or pretends to have the proper jurisdiction over:

2. This is compiled from the opinions of the ancient Latin fathers, the decrees of general councils, and the decretal epistles and bulls of the holy see."

It is of value to note the reference to pretense here. It is further noteworthy that the reference to pretense is not quite so explicitly applied to other governing bodies such as those of nation-states as exampled by America, Great Britain, and so forth. The definition of "Arbitrary Law" only speaks to the object of the definition, offering no real world examples or cites for which law dictionaries appear to be otherwise so painfully generous.


What, Then, Is Law?

If the law dictionaries are getting it wrong, and I insist that they are, what then would a proper definition of "law" look like? That is to say, how does one properly define Law?

For starters, Law cannot be arbitrary. Arbitrary law is mere statute, which in turn is naught other than an expression of the will and caprice of a man or body thereof who decided that some behavior shall now be required of people. Mere statute has no validity, and therefore no force of law. Unfortunately, it almost universally does have the force of armed men who appear to hold precious small compunction to enforce such caprice upon the people to whom they swear an oath to protect their rights. There is great irony in this; sad, dangerous irony that destroys all that is good between men.

If law is to be Law, it must be non-arbitrary, which further implies that it must be based in just principle. Otherwise, it is by definition arbitrary and thereby not Law.

There is, by the way, an analog to this, however loose it may be. A "contract", in order to exist, must meet six criteria, each or which may be validly seen as a principle of sorts, or at least an analog to principle in the sense that they are clearly defined. To wit, a contract must have the following elements present:

1. Offer
2. Acceptance
3. Capacity
4. Intent
5. Consideration
6. Lawfulness

The first two simply say that someone must be making some sort of an offer to another and that the other must accept it in the absence of coercion.


"Capacity" refers to one's mental and physical capacities to responsibly enter into the agreement and discharge the duties and obligations, as well as reap the benefits, embodied therein.


"Intent" refers to the non-coerced intention of all parties to enter into the legal relations the contract stands to establish between them.


"Consideration" is comprised of the list of those things to be exchanged between the parties as the substantive matters of the agreement. It is worthy to note that all parties must receive consideration and that, generally speaking, the mutual considerations must be deemed as at least roughly equivalent. An agreement where only one party receives consideration cannot be a contract, but is naught more than a mere and one-sided obligation of one man in servitude to another. The lawfulness of such agreements appears to sit in some serious question in many jurisdictions.


"Lawfulness" means that the considerations of the agreement must accord with law. For example, I many not contract with another man to have my neighbor murdered.


The point here is that "contract" has a more or less rigorous definition that is narrow and clear. Furthermore, it is declarative in voice, saying "this is what must be." It is a specification for a structure such that all candidates for contract status are, at least in theory, readily judged for validity. In practice, of course, there are those rare cases where the elements are of such a nature that unusual and often thorny questions arise, requiring the attention of particularly adept experts in the practice of contract law.


By this definition, any agreement that fails to carry all six of these elements within its structure is decidedly not a contract, but rather something else.


And so it must be with Law. "Law" must specify the super-normative requirements of its own constitution. Law must be defined in such a way that any man of marginal intellect may look at it and be able to determine whether something put before him as Law is, in fact, Law. This is the key characteristic and requirement that is so conveniently missing and apparently has been since the first days of man's law, with few exceptions.

One of those exceptions may be English Common Law. However, I have become familiar with several potentially and mutually exclusive views on Common Law. The definition as given above makes no mention of such immutable principles, and yet in other venues I have read about such. My understanding, such as it may be, is that under Common Law there are three basic principles to which all men must comport themselves in good accord. To wit:

1. Do no unjust harm
2. Be good for your word
3. Make whole that which you damage

My understanding of this is that these are the principles upon which all Common Law is based and that the remainder is nothing other than case law as the application of these principles cited. I suspect there is likely more to it that just this, certainly today with the British Pariliament churning out statute in the manner of Otto von Bismarck's fabled sausages, where is is quoted as having said, "Laws are like sausages. It's better not to see them being made." The quote is often misattributed to Mark Twain.

Other than this somewhat questionable example, I can think of no other body of national law that founds upon immutable principle insofar as the specification of what constitutes actual Law. Once again I reiterate my opinion that this is not by mere happenstance of unfortunate oversight by those entrusted to define, create, and enact "law". Very much the opposite: men are well proven to covet political power over their fellows. A loosey-goosey definition of "law" offers such men the widest possible latitude to churn out and enact their arbitrary impulses, which serves the interest of their lusts far more faithfully than a definition that any man would be able to apply in determination of whether that which they have declared is in fact valid and in possession of the force of principle.


What, then, is Law?

This brings us to the heart of the matter: a set of specifications that, taken as a whole, defines the qualities and characteristics of Law in terms that are both clear, correct, and complete. Anything less than this must be rejected by all good men of sound mind and character and who treasure that which is right above the wrong, and who treasure their rights and the freedom that has been born into them, as well as the justice that derives from the proper relations between them.


Law, n.

a rule of action applicable to all men to compel or prohibit behavior, constructed in accord with the following specifications and caveats:

1. It must never diminish, restrict, limit, disparage, or otherwise violate the fundamental rights of men in any manner or degree whatsoever, regardless of purport of necessity or claim to authority
2. If addressing a crime, there must be a provably valid specification of the victim's constitution given as justification and basis for the rule
3. it must be based upon an immutable and provenly valid principles of proper human relations
4. It must be linguistically constructed so as not be subject to variations in interpretation. What it meant yesterday, it means today and shall mean tomorrow in perpetuity.
5. It must be demonstrably clear
6. It must be provably correct
7. It must be proven in all its elements prior to taking effect

Caveat of nonseverability: absence of any of these requirements renders the rule as mere and invalid statute, and thereby devoid of any force of Law. Any attempt at the enactment of such an invalid corpus is by this definition false and by that virtue may any man ignore the dictates and prohibitions with no obligation to submit to any act of enforcement. Any such reprisals may be met with force sufficient to remove the threat, up to and including deadly force in the cases where the threats presented are of such a nature and degree that their results may include bodily injury, death, or immediate loss of physical freedom through any or several avenues including but not limited to physical apprehension and subsequent kidnapping by anyone purporting to enforce such non-Law.

Caveat of applicability: Law validly applies only to the degree to, and the manner in which, it is complete and sufficiently specific


Consequences of Conviction: Anyone found guilty of the crime of Murder shall be sentenced to no less than five years in prison, but may be sentenced up to the duration of his life.

Note how this architecture for Law provides objective criteria for its construction and proofing. As with contracts, it makes explicit the requirement of all elements in order for a Law to in fact exist and that absence of any single required component renders the rule as statute and therefore, non-Law, void of any force or effect. It further explicitly recognizes a man's fundamental and inborn right as a Freeman to defend himself against enforcement of such invalid statutory declarations by whatever means necessary, up to and including killing those attempting to impose it upon him.


Example of a valid Law

Here, I contrive a hypothetical Law against murder. Note how immediately and intuitively evident such a law tends to be, precisely because they find their deepest roots in accord with our most basic humanity, as well as reason and logic.

Prohibition against Murder

Any man taking from another his life without just cause shall be guilty of the crime of murder.

Basis: All Men are equally endowed with Life. Born into each Man is the inner drive to preserve and perpetuate his Life, which constitutes the materially observable manifestation of each Man's innate Claim to Life, also known as his Right to Life.

A Man's life is, therefore, his unalienable Property in all contexts where his actions pose no immediate existential threat, or an immediate threat of great destruction or other harm to the Life or other Property of another because beyond such circumstances, no Man may take from another that which is demonstrably the Property of the other.

Contrary to what any other principle or aspect of Law may otherwise assert, a Man's immediate inability to defend his Claim to Life renders no nullity upon said Claim.

Murder is a crime with a perpetrator and one or more victims. The perpetrator is he who takes life without the just causes as have been herein defined. A Victim is one whose life has been taken from him by a perpetrator.

For the purposes of this Law, the following definitions shall apply:

1. Property
2. Claim
3. Right
4. Crime
5. ...

This, of course, is a good representative case of a Law Mala In Sé. Let us now test to see whether this specification rises to the standard of Law.

1. It is explicit in its protections of all Rights of Men
2. Addresses a crime, and defines both perpetrator and victim
3. The valid Principles of Proper Human Relations are cited
4. The semantic structure is clear, with explicit definitions of terms provided
5. The Law is without any ambiguity that I can readily detect
6. While not proven, it appears at first blush to meet the standard
7. Similar to point 6, however, being well founded in principle and of a brief and fundamentally simple construction, it would seem likely to pass this smell test.

While I have failed to put this specification through the complete program of rigor for the sake of the mercy of brevity to you, the reader, I am confident that it either meets the standard, or would with only minor modification.


Example of Invalid Specification Resulting in Non-Law

Prohibition against possession, use, and sale of Cannabis Sativa

Anyone found to be in possession of cannabis sativa shall be guilty of a capital crime and shall be sentenced to death.


Clearly this specification fails to rise to the standard of Law. It is a clear case of a law mala prohibita, which is perhaps by that virtue not Law. That potential argument aside, let us go through the list:

1. It fails to establish a non-arbitrary basis for the prohibition
2. It fails to establish a crime, much less a valid victim
3. There is no principle, valid or otherwise, to which any reference direct or oblique in evidence
4. Semantics are clear enough
5. The specification is ambiguous as it fails to make explicit the meaning of "possession"
6. Not apparently valid
7. Not applicable for the purposes of this example.

Furthermore, it fails to meet the standard of the Caveat of Applicability as it is far too broadly expressed.


This example is, of course, one of a glaring nature, chosen for the purpose of providing a clear representation of non-Law. In reality, non-Law is at times likely to be far more subtle in its failings.



Conclusion

This general specification for Law as presented here is possibly not be quite complete and correct, but if not, I believe it is very close.


It is, in any event, a good and necessary start not only toward bringing men finally into the possession of a proper definition and specification standard for Law, but also as an instrument of generating awareness of the need for such an objective standard.


Such a standard promises to meet with vigorous opposition in circles of political power, for it would bind the hands of legislators in ways they are certain to find violently objectionable. It might meet similar, if less violent opposition from other quarters, practitioners of Law (or law) included.


Law has become one of the most pervasive and dangerous scams in existence. It purports to protect the freedoms of men, while in point of fact it does more to deny and demolish the rights of men than any other nameable factor in our lives.


Take it in and let it roll around in the back of your thoughts awhile. The propriety of this idea should resonate with all freedom-minded men. Imagine a nation where legislators were greatly or even wholly limited in their powers to step on the rights of those whose rights they swore to uphold and protect. That is the potential of this idea.


Until next time, please accept my best wishes.

[timosman]

http://www.thedevilsdictionary.com/?l=#LAW_

LAW, n.
Once Law was sitting on the bench,
And Mercy knelt a-weeping.
"Clear out!" he cried, "disordered wench!
Nor come before me creeping.
Upon your knees if you appear,
'Tis plain you have no standing here."

Then Justice came. His Honor cried:
"Your status? — devil seize you!"
"Amica curiæ," she replied —
"Friend of the court, so please you."
"Begone!" he shouted — "there's the door —
I never saw your face before!"
—G.J.

[MallsRGood]

The law is whatever the sovereign says it is: the set of rules which he/they in fact enforce.

We can of course disagree with these rules and believe they should be otherwise, but that doesn't change what they are.

[osan]

The law is whatever the sovereign says it is: the set of rules which he/they in fact enforce.

We can of course disagree with these rules and believe they should be otherwise, but that doesn't change what they are.

Then chaos and caprice rule.

[otherone]

Then chaos and caprice rule.

There is no chaos if caprice is equitably enforced.

[MallsRGood]

Then chaos and caprice rule.

"Rule of law" is a myth in the sense that there is no transcendent "the law' binding the state.

But it doesn't follow that the laws created and enforced by the state must be chaotic or capricious.

Sometimes they are, sometimes they aren't.

It all depends on the incentives and competence of the ruler(s).

[osan]

"Rule of law" is a myth in the sense that there is no transcendent "the law' binding the state.

Firstly, there is no such thing as "the state". Therefore, what is bound are men and nothing other than men.

That established, the Law that binds men descends directly from the fact that all men hold equal claims to life. The equality of men's claims to life frames every aspect of human relations. The proof is simple and intuitively obvious. The only assumption required is that of equal claims. From that, all else follows quite naturally.

It all depends on the incentives and competence of the ruler(s).

Au contraire. The underlying arbitrariness speaks to chaos of a sort. Appearances of order are just that. A loose analog is a suspension of finely divided particles in a running blender. The jar imparts an illusion of order because of the superficialities of outer form. The internal reality, however, is very different.

So long as Law is arbitrary, it's basis is chaotic precisely because there is no invariant upon which it founds. Without a frame of reference, there is no basis upon which one may rely.

There is an objective basis for human relations, which directly implies there is such a basis for Law.

[osan]

There is no chaos if caprice is equitably enforced.

Cute.

[presence]

http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/sp...f-justice-1882

The answer is, that through all historic times, wherever any people have advanced beyond the savage state, and have learned to increase their means of subsistence by the cultivation of the soil, a greater or less number of them have associated and organized themselves as robbers, to plunder and enslave all others, [17] who had either accumulated any property that could be seized, or had shown, by their labor, that they could be made to contribute to the support or pleasure of those who should enslave them.


These bands of robbers, small in number at first, have increased their power by uniting with each other, inventing warlike weapons, disciplining themselves, and perfecting their organizations as military forces, and dividing their plunder (including their captives) among themselves, either in such proportions as have been previously agreed on, or in such as their leaders (always desirous to increase the number of their followers) should prescribe.


The success of these bands of robbers was an easy thing, for the reason that those whom they plundered and enslaved were comparatively defenceless; being scattered thinly over the country; engaged wholly in trying, by rude implements and heavy labor, to extort a subsistence from the soil; having no weapons of war, other than sticks and stones; having no military discipline or organization, and no means of concentrating their forces, or acting in concert, when suddenly attacked. Under these circumstances, the only alternative left them for saving even their lives, or the lives of their families, was to yield up not only the crops they had gathered, and the lands they had cultivated, but themselves and their families also as slaves.


Thenceforth their fate was, as slaves, to cultivate for others the lands they had before cultivated for themselves. Being driven constantly to their labor, wealth slowly increased; but all went into the hands of their tyrants.


These tyrants, living solely on plunder, and on the labor of their slaves, and applying all their energies to the seizure of still more plunder, and the enslavement of still other defenceless persons; increasing, too, their numbers, perfecting their organizations, and multiplying their weapons of war, they extend their conquests until, in order to hold what they have already got, it becomes necessary for them to act systematically, and co operate with each other in holding their slaves in subjection.


But all this they can do only by establishing what they call a government, and making what they call laws.

All the great governments of the world—those now existing, as well as those that have passed away—have been of this character. They have been mere bands of robbers, who have associated for purposes of plunder, conquest, and the enslavement of their fellow men. And their laws, as they have called them, have been only such agreements as they have found it necessary to enter into, in order to maintain their organizations, and act together in plundering and enslaving others, and in securing to each his agreed share of the spoils.


All these laws have had no more real obligation than have the agreements which brigands, bandits, and pirates find it necessary to enter into with each other, for the more successful accomplishment of their crimes, and the more peaceable division of their spoils.


Thus substantially all the legislation of the world has had its origin in the desires of one class of persons to plunder and enslave others, and hold them as property.


[]

The purpose and effect of these laws have been to maintain, in the hands of the robber, or slave holding class, a monopoly of all lands, and, as far as possible, of all other means of creating wealth; and thus to keep the great body of laborers in such a state of poverty and dependence, as would compel them to sell their labor to their tyrants for the lowest prices at which life could be sustained.


The result of all this is, that the little wealth there is in the world is all in the hands of a few—that is, in the hands of the law-making, slave-holding class; who are now as much slave-holders in spirit as they ever were, but who accomplish their purposes by means of the laws they make for keeping the laborers in subjection and dependence, instead of each one’s owning his individual slaves as so many chattels.



Thus the whole business of legislation, which has now grown to such gigantic proportions, had its origin in the conspiracies, which have always existed among the few, for the purpose of holding the many in subjection, and extorting from them their labor, and all the profits of their labor.


-Lysander Spooner
Natural Law; or the Science of Justice

[osan]

http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/sp...f-justice-1882

Spooner was on the money.

ETA and PS: I've not seen this work of Spooner's before, so thanks for posting it. I see it is rather short, which recommends it. More so, the three "chapter" headings suggest content very much in line with my own thoughts and writings. This should be an interesting read.

Thanks again.

[AZJoe]

Seems like a good place to also share some Bastiat.

Bastiat, Claude Frederic –

All you have to do, is to see whether the law takes from some what belongs to them in order to give it to others to whom it does not belong. We must see whether the law performs, for the profit of one citizen and to the detriment of others, an act which that citizen could not perform himself without being guilty of a crime. Repeal such a law without delay. … [I]f you don’t take care, what begins by being an exception tends to become general, to multiply itself, and to develop into a veritable system.

If philanthropy is not voluntary, it destroys liberty and justice. The law can give nothing that has not first been taken from its owner.

Sometimes the law defends plunder and participates in it. Sometimes the law places the whole apparatus of judges, police, prisons and gendarmes at the service of the plunderers, and treats the victim—when he defends himself—as a criminal. - The Law.

The mission of the law is not to oppress persons and plunder them of their property, even though the law may be acting in a philanthropic spirit. Its purpose is to protect persons and property…. If you exceed this proper limit—if you attempt to make the law religious, fraternal, equalizing, philanthropic, industrial, or artistic—you will then be lost in uncharted territory, in vagueness and uncertainty, in a forced utopia or, even worse, in a multitude of utopias, each striving to seize the law and impose it on you. - The Law.

What, then, is the law? It is the collective organization of the individual right to lawful defense. ... since an individual cannot lawfully use force against the person, liberty, or property of another individual, then the common force—for the same reason—cannot lawfully be used to destroy the person, liberty, or property of individual groups. ... But, unfortunately, law by no means confines itself to its proper functions. And when it has exceeded its proper functions, it has not done so merely in some inconsequential and debatable matters. The law has gone further than this; it has acted in direct opposition to its own purpose. The law has been used to destroy its own objective: It has been applied to annihilating the justice that it was supposed to maintain; to limiting and destroying rights which its real purpose was to respect. The law has placed the collective force at the disposal of the unscrupulous who wish, without risk, to exploit the person, liberty, and property of others. It has converted plunder into a right, in order to protect plunder. And it has converted lawful defense into a crime, in order to punish lawful defense. - The Law, 1850.

[AZJoe]

Virtually all reasonable laws are obeyed, not because they are law, but because reasonable people would do that anyway. If you obey a law simply because it is the law, that’s a pretty likely sign that it shouldn’t be a law.

[dannno]

Firstly, there is no such thing as "the state".

That's true.

You can't show me a picture of "the state".

You can show me a picture of guys with black suits on with scary guns we aren't allowed to have and badges that have words on them that give them more rights than us under the law. You can show me a bunch of paper with black ink on it. You can show me a bunch of buildings in a far off land and a bunch of guys who get together sometimes. You can even show me people voting for their favorite master. The fact is, "the state" is not tangible, it's just something we imagine.

[presence]

You can show me a picture of guys with black suits on with scary guns we aren't allowed to have and badges that have words on them that give them more rights entitlements than us under the law legislation.

ftfy

[otherone]

Cute.

Not intentionally.
It is the belief in the transcendency of "L"aw by the people that gives sovereigns their power, no matter how capricious the law (or sovereign).

[osan]

Not intentionally.
It is the belief in the transcendency of "L"aw by the people that gives sovereigns their power, no matter how capricious the law (or sovereign).

That, of course, depends on the precise nature of the transcendency in question. Biased lopsidedly in Theire favor, which is a deep corruption of the concept, and you are certainly correct. However, we can construe that transcendency in a far more objectively neutral manner, in which case it takes on a far more equitable, intuitively sensible, and provably correct cast.

In typical fashion, the difference between the two constructions revolves around the relevant sense of "equality" between people. On the one hand, where everyone is assumed to be "equal", such as with "equal claims to life" and similar senses of equality, once assumed, everything falls into place in a simple and elegant manner. This is a very strong indicator of correctness. The other side of the coin is to reject relevant equality between all men, in which case a literally endless cascade of "downward" recursing questions arises because the unavoidable and very direct and vigorous implication of non-equality is that some men hold some status superior to the others, again in the relevant senses. This immediately leads to the questions that arise as to who occupies the superior positions, by what innate virtue they hold them, how do we know they do so rightfully, and so on. The reason the cascade recurses endlessly is because all possible answers of even the least marginal credibility fail to settle the issue apodictically. Rather, they lead only to more questions of the same or very similar sorts, the answers at each level producing the same non-authoritative result and leading to yet another "level" of questions.

When actively engaging in this sort of debate, it rapidly becomes crystal clear that the path of rejection will produce no joy, whereas contrariwise the path of acceptance of the equality of all men draws the question no further, but only puts the issue neatly and satisfyingly to bed.

Given all this, Law becomes this transcendent thing that guarantees and protects the rights of all men.

The problem with "government" as it has always existed in any non-trivial capacity has rested in certain of the base assumptions upon which it has existed and operated. Change those assumptions and let the people enforce the resulting implications of the alternatives and political life takes on a very different hue.

But if this is so, then why has no nation undertaken such a path? I would submit that few people beyond a small handful across the globe are actually in possession of these ideas, awareness being a necessary first step. Secondly, people are so trained to their servitude, they cannot imagine a life as my vision would precipitate upon them. In addition, most are not interested in it because such an arrangement would place demands upon them in terms of the cultivation of intelligence, accountability, and so forth; all the things the Weakman hates with bitterly angry passion. I would add that having been bred and trained to timidity, the bracing challenges of the freedom that such an arrangement of Law would present are the things of which the Weakman's deepest and most terrifying nightmares are made.

I would submit that such an arrangement could be sold in time even to Weakmen, given the right marketing approach. But how does one do it when the word reaches few, if any?

I choose the transcendency of Law that defends the sovereignty of the Freeman over that which reinforces supremacy of "the state".

[presence]

Secondly, people are so trained to their servitude, they cannot imagine a life as my vision would precipitate upon them.

Most men lead lives of quiet desperation and go to the grave with the song still in them.
-Thoreau

[dannno]

ftfy

FYI for the mods, I approve this ftfy