Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 112

Thread: The Rule Of Law Is A Myth

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1

    Default The Rule Of Law Is A Myth

    This is the start of a longer article by Dr. John Hasnas, a doctor of economics and law at Georgetown University as well as a Senior Fellow of the CATO Institute. It is totally work reading in toto. I think his conclusion is inescapable in the end: The rule of law is a myth that is perpetuated by those in power in order to secure their positions and the obedience of those not in power.

    In his novel 1984, George Orwell created a nightmare vision of the future in which an all-powerful Party exerts totalitarian control over society by forcing the citizens to master the technique of "doublethink," which requires them "to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancel[] out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them." (3) Orwell's doublethink is usually regarded as a wonderful literary device, but, of course, one with no referent in reality since it is obviously impossible to believe both halves of a contradiction. In my opinion, this assessment is quite mistaken. Not only is it possible for people to believe both halves of a contradiction, it is something they do every day with no apparent difficulty.

    Consider, for example, people's beliefs about the legal system. They are obviously aware that the law is inherently political. The common complaint that members of Congress are corrupt, or are legislating for their own political benefit or for that of special interest groups demonstrates that citizens understand that the laws under which they live are a product of political forces rather than the embodiment of the ideal of justice. Further, as evidenced by the political battles fought over the recent nominations of Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court, the public obviously believes that the ideology of the people who serve as judges influences the way the law is interpreted.

    This, however, in no way prevents people from simultaneously regarding the law as a body of definite, politically neutral rules amenable to an impartial application which all citizens have a moral obligation to obey. Thus, they seem both surprised and dismayed to learn that the Clean Air Act might have been written, not to produce the cleanest air possible, but to favor the economic interests of the miners of dirty-burning West Virginia coal (West Virginia coincidentally being the home of Robert Byrd, who was then chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee) over those of the miners of cleaner-burning western coal. (4) And, when the Supreme Court hands down a controversial ruling on a subject such as abortion, civil rights, or capital punishment, then, like Louis in Casablanca, the public is shocked, shocked to find that the Court may have let political considerations influence its decision. The frequent condemnation of the judiciary for "undemocratic judicial activism" or "unprincipled social engineering" is merely a reflection of the public's belief that the law consists of a set of definite and consistent "neutral principles" (5) which the judge is obligated to apply in an objective manner, free from the influence of his or her personal political and moral beliefs.

    I believe that, much as Orwell suggested, it is the public's ability to engage in this type of doublethink, to be aware that the law is inherently political in character and yet believe it to be an objective embodiment of justice, that accounts for the amazing degree to which the federal government is able to exert its control over a supposedly free people. I would argue that this ability to maintain the belief that the law is a body of consistent, politically neutral rules that can be objectively applied by judges in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, goes a long way toward explaining citizens' acquiescence in the steady erosion of their fundamental freedoms. To show that this is, in fact, the case, I would like to direct your attention to the fiction which resides at the heart of this incongruity and allows the public to engage in the requisite doublethink without cognitive discomfort: the myth of the rule of law.

    I refer to the myth of the rule of law because, to the extent this phrase suggests a society in which all are governed by neutral rules that are objectively applied by judges, there is no such thing. As a myth, however, the concept of the rule of law is both powerful and dangerous. Its power derives from its great emotive appeal. The rule of law suggests an absence of arbitrariness, an absence of the worst abuses of tyranny. The image presented by the slogan "America is a government of laws and not people" is one of fair and impartial rule rather than subjugation to human whim. This is an image that can command both the allegiance and affection of the citizenry. After all, who wouldn't be in favor of the rule of law if the only alternative were arbitrary rule? But this image is also the source of the myth's danger. For if citizens really believe that they are being governed by fair and impartial rules and that the only alternative is subjection to personal rule, they will be much more likely to support the state as it progressively curtails their freedom.

    In this Article, I will argue that this is a false dichotomy. Specifically, I intend to establish three points: 1) there is no such thing as a government of law and not people, 2) the belief that there is serves to maintain public support for society's power structure, and 3) the establishment of a truly free society requires the abandonment of the myth of the rule of law.

    For the rest: http://faculty.msb.edu/hasnasj/GTWebSite/MythWeb.htm
    Last edited by PierzStyx; 10-05-2017 at 04:07 PM.
    “Maybe I forgot to mention something to you: I don’t believe in queens. You think freedom is something you can give and take on a whim. But to your people, freedom is as essential as air. And without it, there is no life. There is only darkness.” -Zaheer

    "A man chooses. A slave obeys."-Andrew Ryan

    "There are three things the parasite hates: free markets, free will, and free men."-Andrew Ryan



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2

    Default

    Disclaimer: I haven't read the article yet

    The rule of law is a myth, but not one "perpetuated by those in power in order to secure their positions and the obedience of those not in power," or, at least, if it is that, it doesn't really matter. The rule of law is a myth because "law" is, if anything, words written on paper. It can't do anything. It can't hold anyone to account for anything. The "rule of law" is always the rule of some person or persons. The upshot of this is that, if you want those on power to behave in a certain way, you must not rely on written words which no one but they themselves will be in a position to interpret and apply. The question then arises: how are those in positions of power to be held to account? Well, by definition, those in positions of power cannot be held to account by those not in positions of power. If someone can order the sovereign to act differently, then he is the sovereign (and by whom is he to be held account: ad infinitum). Ultimately, the behavior of those in power is a function of internal motivation, not external pressure. If you want them to behave in a certain way, you must create a political structure which incentivizes (not compels) them to do so. I'll end short of naming what that political structure is, since I don't want to derail Pierz's thread, but suffice it to say it isn't anarcho-capitalism.

  4. #3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PierzStyx View Post
    This, however, in no way prevents people from simultaneously regarding the law as a body of definite, politically neutral rules amenable to an impartial application which all citizens have a moral obligation to obey.
    I am afraid it is far worse than this. They know that law is mostly inane, politically biased, endlessly subject to corrupted application, and yet still they believe in the obligation to obey. This is the very definition of "just about hopeless".
    Through lives and lives shalt thou pay, O' king.

    Pray for reset.


  5. #4

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    I am afraid it is far worse than this. They know that law is mostly inane, politically biased, endlessly subject to corrupted application, and yet still they believe in the obligation to obey. This is the very definition of "just about hopeless".
    Obedience has less to do with belief than with the gun.

    Last time someone seriously tried to defy this state, and assert his independence, this state killed half a million people in rebuttal.

    The gun, and then time, makes for cooperation: deterrence.

    Beliefs are mostly rationalizations for the existing power structure, both on the side of the rulers and on the side of the ruled.

    The gun is primary.

    ...I hate to cite Mao as an authority, but he was correct in that respect.

  6. #5

    Default

    seriously guys?
    the "Rule of Law" is what separates a Democracy from a Republic.
    in a Democracy, the people can vote on any damn thing they wish.
    if you place a few restrictions on what they can vote on. it is a Republic.

    only a dimwit would think that the "Rule of Law" means that there are Laws... and they Rule.

    seems this subject is too complicated for the folks around these parts.

    after all. what was our founders definition of the "Rule of Law"?
    Last edited by HVACTech; 10-06-2017 at 08:28 PM.
    "If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough." - Albert Einstein

    "for I have sworn upon the altar of god eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. - Thomas Jefferson.

  7. #6

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HVACTech View Post

    after all. what was our founders definition of the "Rule of Law"?
    Second Amendment to the Constitution.
    Liberty is lost through complacency and a subservient mindset. When we accept or even welcome automobile checkpoints, random searches, mandatory identification cards, and paramilitary police in our streets, we have lost a vital part of our American heritage. America was born of protest, revolution, and mistrust of government. Subservient societies neither maintain nor deserve freedom for long.
    Ron Paul 2004

    Registered Ron Paul supporter # 2202
    It's all about Freedom

  8. #7

    Default

    Our legal system is designed to protect the big criminals...
    “Justice” and our legal system are completely opposed to each other, see chapter 19 and 57 from the Tao Te Ching: http://www.austincc.edu/adechene/taoteching.pdf

    19
    Throw away holiness and wisdom,
    and people will be a hundred times happier.
    Throw away morality and justice,
    and people will do the right thing.

    Throw away industry and profit,
    and there won't be any thieves.
    If these three aren't enough,
    just stay at the CENTER of the circle
    and let all things take their course.


    57
    If you want to be a great leader,
    you must learn to follow the Tao.
    Stop trying to control.
    Let go of fixed plans and concepts,
    and the world will govern itself.
    The more prohibitions you have,
    the less virtuous people will be.


    The more weapons you have,
    the less secure people will be.
    The more subsidies you have,
    the less self-reliant people will be.

    Therefore the Master says:
    I let go of the law,
    and people become honest.
    I let go of economics,
    and people become prosperous.
    I let go of religion,
    and people become serene.
    I let go of all desire for the common good,
    and the good becomes common as grass.

    Most people, who hear of the teachings of Lao Tzu, think it’s something of a joke...
    Do NOT ever read my posts.
    Google and Yahoo wouldn’t block them without a very good reason: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...he-world/page2

  9. #8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pcosmar View Post
    Second Amendment to the Constitution.
    it is the only one that we have left.

    I suspect.. that AF and I are in agreement on this.
    "If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough." - Albert Einstein

    "for I have sworn upon the altar of god eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. - Thomas Jefferson.

  10. #9

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    Obedience has less to do with belief than with the gun.

    Last time someone seriously tried to defy this state, and assert his independence, this state killed half a million people in rebuttal.

    The gun, and then time, makes for cooperation: deterrence.

    Beliefs are mostly rationalizations for the existing power structure, both on the side of the rulers and on the side of the ruled.

    The gun is primary.

    ...I hate to cite Mao as an authority, but he was correct in that respect.
    guns were a relatively new invention in 1787.
    the inherent problems with any form of mass social organization. were very well understood by our founders.
    the Republic was invented by the Romans. (they learned from the Greeks)
    it is Latin.
    "res-publica" the public thing.
    go ahead. google it.

    our founders understood that the masses will organize. and overwhelm small peaceful places.
    and that my friend.
    is why they chose a Republican form of goonerment.
    to limit the masses from doing so.
    to suggest that it is possible, to stop the masses from self organizing is foolish.
    and that was well known prior to the invention by Mr Colt.
    "If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough." - Albert Einstein

    "for I have sworn upon the altar of god eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. - Thomas Jefferson.

  11. #10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HVACTech View Post
    guns were a relatively new invention in 1787.
    the inherent problems with any form of mass social organization. were very well understood by our founders.
    the Republic was invented by the Romans. (they learned from the Greeks)
    it is Latin.
    "res-publica" the public thing.
    go ahead. google it.

    our founders understood that the masses will organize. and overwhelm small peaceful places.
    and that my friend.
    is why they chose a Republican form of goonerment.
    to limit the masses from doing so.
    to suggest that it is possible, to stop the masses from self organizing is foolish.
    and that was well known prior to the invention by Mr Colt.
    The republic is a joke (look at what it does).

    The founders were well intended, good (classical) liberals, but naive.

    Muskets weren't new in 1787 and, even if they were, people can kill one another with axes, swords, spears, etc.

    Nothing new under the sun

  12. #11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    The republic is a joke (look at what it does).

    The founders were well intended, good (classical) liberals, but naive.

    Muskets weren't new in 1787 and, even if they were, people can kill one another with axes, swords, spears, etc.

    Nothing new under the sun
    China is a republic. Russia is also a Republic.
    to blow them off.. is to do so...
    at your own peril.

    does thou art.. pretend to know more about a what a "Republic" is... or is not...

    than Russia or China?
    "If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough." - Albert Einstein

    "for I have sworn upon the altar of god eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. - Thomas Jefferson.

  13. #12

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    Obedience has less to do with belief than with the gun.

    Last time someone seriously tried to defy this state, and assert his independence, this state killed half a million people in rebuttal.

    The gun, and then time, makes for cooperation: deterrence.

    Beliefs are mostly rationalizations for the existing power structure, both on the side of the rulers and on the side of the ruled.

    The gun is primary.

    ...I hate to cite Mao as an authority, but he was correct in that respect.
    Except the whole point of the Cultural Revolution was to brainwash the masses so he wouldn't need the gun.

    Guns ultimately fail. You murder enough people long enough and they eventually revolt. Look at the USSR for example.

    In order to endure you need people to believe you are right. People will endure anything if they believe it. Make them think they matter? And they'll follow you into Hell itself.
    “Maybe I forgot to mention something to you: I don’t believe in queens. You think freedom is something you can give and take on a whim. But to your people, freedom is as essential as air. And without it, there is no life. There is only darkness.” -Zaheer

    "A man chooses. A slave obeys."-Andrew Ryan

    "There are three things the parasite hates: free markets, free will, and free men."-Andrew Ryan

  14. #13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PierzStyx View Post
    Except the whole point of the Cultural Revolution was to brainwash the masses so he wouldn't need the gun.

    Guns ultimately fail. You murder enough people long enough and they eventually revolt. Look at the USSR for example.

    In order to endure you need people to believe you are right. People will endure anything if they believe it. Make them think they matter? And they'll follow you into Hell itself.
    The school is ultimately more effective than the gun, but the school (i.e. the monopoly, tax-financed school) requires the gun.

    Culture/Ideology is downstream from power.

    Quote Originally Posted by PierzStyx View Post
    If you oppose teh idea of might makes right then you're halfway to being an anarchist.
    "Might makes right" can be understood normatively or descriptively. Anarchism isn't unique in denying that might makes right in the normative sense; every libertarian denies that might ought to make right. Anarchists are only unique in denying that might makes right in a descriptive sense; i.e. that the fellow with the guns will in fact make the rules, right or wrong.

    Quote Originally Posted by PierzStyx View Post
    There is no such thing as a good State. The very basic foundation of any and all States is tyranny. And they will only become more and more tyrannical. Ther eis not a single State in all of history that has ever reduced tyranny.
    That's absurd, and I know that you, as a student of history, know that.

    Not all states are equally oppressive; states do sometimes become less oppressive over time.

    The absolute dichotomy "anarchy or tyranny" is an impediment to thought.

    It is possible that violence and bloodshed could happen in an anarchist society. But this is so in all forms of human organization. Anarchists realize though that anarchy gives the least bloodshed and causes the least harm for the most people. It is not perfect, nothing is perfect. But it is better in every realistic case and example you can conjure than the State, any type of State.
    No, anarchists believe that, contrary to both theory and the empirical evidence.

    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Anarchist societies live in a constant state of war and violence, they may have smaller instances of tyranny and violence but they make up for it by having no respite, and they always give way to bigger nastier tyrants unless good people create a government to defend against it.
    Precisely

    As societies become more complex, war becomes more destructive per episode but also much less frequent.

    The overall result of this increasing political centralization is less violence.




    Quote Originally Posted by PierzStyx View Post
    Exactly. Just look at the arguments.

    Statists argue that anarchy will lead to warlordism as local warlords seize power. Let us assume this is true. Small time warlords with small time armies either must give the people they rule great benefits or they will be overwhelmed by the much larger population. At the very least people will have more power over their lives and who rules them.
    If there must be a state (and there must), it is better that it be as secure as possible. An insecure state is more irrational and dangerous than a secure state. Compare relatively stable democracies in the West with unstable democracies in the third world. Compare Rome c. 1 AD with Rome c. 400 AD. This is true for the same reason that private property owners manage their property better when they aren't worried about it being stolen. It's a function of time preference.

    Quote Originally Posted by PierzStyx View Post
    Technology has nothing to do with being more tribal or less tribal or even more free and less free. China is one of the most technologically advanced nations on the planet. Singapore is one of the richest. Neither rank anywhere near the freest.

    Further, it doesn't matter how big or small you are if the conqueror has far superior technology if your only method of resistance is violence. You're going to lose. It doesn't matter if you're a state or not. Being a state in fact grants no great possibility of success or failure in warfare.

    The Inca and Aztec both were highly developed states with more well-trained men, more organization, and a greater knowledge of the territory than their Spanish conquerors. Yet the Inca and Aztec still lost. Sometimes in insanely lopsided battles. At the Battle of Cajamarca, for example, around 180 Spanish soldier defeated anywhere between 3,000-8,000 highly trained Incan warriors. Why? Cannons and steel. It has nothing to do with Anarchy vs. the State and everything to do with technology.
    Technological development is a function of capital accumulation, which is a function of the security of property.

    The state makes for more secure property, thereby accelerating capital accumulation and technological development.

    The Amerindians were less developed because, for various reasons, they developed state societies later (or never).

    Quote Originally Posted by PierzStyx View Post
    The Romans had serious technological advances over the mostly Germanic tribes of Europe, including steel armor, weapons, siege weapons, even Greek Fire. Even with those they were never able to take anything past the Rhine or north of Hadrian's Wall. Rome was very successful at defeating variously organized states -Carthage, Egypt, the city-states of Greece, Persia, etc.- but never was able to truly pacify the tribes of Western Europe -the Germanics, Ireland, Scotland, etc.- or the Eastern European tribes -such as the Huns, Magyars, etc.
    Less a lack of ability than a lack of inclination

    The semi-nomadic peoples of those regions weren't worth conquering (no/insufficient taxable surplus).

    ...which is the same reason that they didn't form recognizable, territorial states of their own.
    Last edited by r3volution 3.0; 10-18-2017 at 07:49 PM.

  15. #14

    Default

    I currently.. live in a "state" of Arkansas...
    will it always be so?
    how did this land.. become the "state" of Arkansas?
    I KNOW what it means...
    [I]The Kansa tribe of Native Americans are closely associated with the Sioux tribes of the Great Plains. The word "Arkansas" itself is a French pronunciation ("Arcansas") of a Quapaw (a related "Kaw" tribe) word, akakaze, meaning "land of downriver people" or the Sioux word akakaze meaning "people of the south wind". [/I]

    should I be mad at the Natives for creating this "State"?
    and what is Arkansas today? is it in a "State" of Bill and Hillary Clinton?
    or Sam Walton?
    if we join Texas... will we still be in a "STATE" of Arkansas?
    or will we be in a state of Texas?
    "If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough." - Albert Einstein

    "for I have sworn upon the altar of god eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. - Thomas Jefferson.

  16. #15

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    The overall result of this increasing political centralization is less violence.






    That's some mighty impressive data you borrowed there. I went to the cite to find what their "sources" were. Really, do you expect me to believe all that info can be "extracted" from a few books? How in the world do you expect to extract that info from societies that lived many hundreds or even thousands of years ago?? Did they leave statistics for us? Perhaps this data was on their hard drives which we found intact.

    Use common sense. These people (and there were only a couple of source books) have an agenda. I'm certainly not saying that I have "better" data because I'm simply pointing out the difficulty of getting accurate data at all. You could dig up a few graves but so what? You might have found graves from a war site. That would mess up the data. Violent death rates of 55%?? How does the society even reproduce with that kind of crazy number?
    BEWARE THE CULT OF "GOVERNMENT"

    Christian Anarchy - Our Only Hope For Liberty In Our Lifetime!
    Sonmi 451: Truth is singular. Its "versions" are mistruths.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ChristianAnarchist

    Use an internet archive site like
    THIS ONE
    to archive the article and create the link to the article content instead.

  17. #16

    Default

    In his novel 1984, George Orwell created a nightmare vision of the future
    That's just like, your opinion, man
    It's all about taking action and not being lazy. So you do the work, whether it's fitness or whatever. It's about getting up, motivating yourself and just doing it.
    - Kim Kardashian

    Donald Trump / Rand Paul (Vice Pres) 2016!!!!

  18. #17

    Default

    3.0 probably came closest to the truth. Words on paper don't mean anything unless people actually enforce it. In civic terms, yes government has a monopoly on force. But, a more timid example would be the Ron Paul forum rules and guidelines. They don't mean squat unless a moderator or administrator chooses to enforce them. As soon as they start letting things slide, the forum becomes a free-for-all and whoever can spam the most garbage or call the most names is declared the winner. Anarchy ensues, for better but usually for worse, as you end up with 100-page threads with 2 or 3 people going at it and misinterpreting or misrepresenting everything that is said.
    Last edited by nobody's_hero; 10-06-2017 at 06:03 AM.

  19. #18

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nobody's_hero View Post
    3.0 probably came closest to the truth. Words on paper don't mean anything unless people actually enforce it. In civic terms, yes government has a monopoly on force. But, a more timid example would be the Ron Paul forum rules and guidelines. They don't mean squat unless a moderator or administrator chooses to enforce them. As soon as they start letting things slide, the forum becomes a free-for-all and whoever can spam the most garbage or call the most names is declared the winner. Anarchy ensues, for better but usually for worse, as you end up with 100-page threads with 2 or 3 people going at it and misinterpreting or misrepresenting everything that is said.
    Perfect example.

    And, yes, Rev was right. Any ideal must be secured if it is to be made applicable.

    Only other thing I would add is what is Legal is not always Lawful. In fact, it seldom is.
    Last edited by Natural Citizen; 10-16-2017 at 02:44 PM.

  20. #19

    Default

    The whole thing is great.

    Here's a part I really liked in section XIII:
    I am aware that this explanation probably appears as initially unconvincing as was my earlier contention that the law is inherently political. Even if you found my Monosizea parable entertaining, it is likely that you regard it as irrelevant. You probably believe that the analogy fails because shoes are qualitatively different from legal services. After all, law is a public good which, unlike shoes, really is crucial to public welfare. It is easy to see how the free market can adequately supply the public with shoes. But how can it possibly provide the order-generating and maintaining processes necessary for the peaceful coexistence of human beings in society? What would a free market in legal services be like?

    I am always tempted to give the honest and accurate response to this challenge, which is that to ask the question is to miss the point. If human beings had the wisdom and knowledge-generating capacity to be able to describe how a free market would work, that would be the strongest possible argument for central planning. One advocates a free market not because of some moral imprimatur written across the heavens, but because it is impossible for human beings to amass the knowledge of local conditions and the predictive capacity necessary to effectively organize economic relationships among millions of individuals. It is possible to describe what a free market in shoes would be like because we have one. But such a description is merely an observation of the current state of a functioning market, not a projection of how human beings would organize themselves to supply a currently non-marketed good. To demand that an advocate of free market law (or Socrates of Monosizea, for that matter) describe in advance how markets would supply legal services (or shoes) is to issue an impossible challenge. Further, for an advocate of free market law (or Socrates) to even accept this challenge would be to engage in self-defeating activity since the more successfully he or she could describe how the law (or shoe) market would function, the more he or she would prove that it could be run by state planners. Free markets supply human wants better than state monopolies precisely because they allow an unlimited number of suppliers to attempt to do so. By patronizing those who most effectively meet their particular needs and causing those who do not to fail, consumers determine the optimal method of supply. If it were possible to specify in advance what the outcome of this process of selection would be, there would be no need for the process itself.

    Although I am tempted to give this response, I never do. This is because, although true, it never persuades. Instead, it is usually interpreted as an appeal for blind faith in the free market, and the failure to provide a specific explanation as to how such a market would provide legal services is interpreted as proof that it cannot. Therefore, despite the self-defeating nature of the attempt, I usually do try to suggest how a free market in law might work.

    So, what would a free market in legal services be like? As Sherlock Holmes would regularly say to the good doctor, "You see, Watson, but you do not observe." Examples of non-state law are all around us. Consider labor-management collective bargaining agreements. In addition to setting wage rates, such agreements typically determine both the work rules the parties must abide by and the grievance procedures they must follow to resolve disputes. In essence, such contracts create the substantive law of the workplace as well as the workplace judiciary. A similar situation exists with regard to homeowner agreements, which create both the rules and dispute settlement procedures within a condominium or housing development, i.e., the law and judicial procedure of the residential community. Perhaps a better example is supplied by universities. These institutions create their own codes of conduct for both students and faculty that cover everything from academic dishonesty to what constitutes acceptable speech and dating behavior. In addition, they not only devise their own elaborate judicial procedures to deal with violations of these codes, but typically supply their own campus police forces as well. A final example may be supplied by the many commercial enterprises that voluntarily opt out of the state judicial system by writing clauses in their contracts that require disputes to be settled through binding arbitration or mediation rather than through a lawsuit. In this vein, the variegated "legal" procedures that have recently been assigned the sobriquet of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) do a good job of suggesting what a free market in legal service might be like. (35)

    Of course, it is not merely that we fail to observe what is presently all around us. We also act as though we have no knowledge of our own cultural or legal history. Consider, for example, the situation of African-American communities in the segregated South or the immigrant communities in New York in the first quarter of the twentieth century. Because of prejudice, poverty and the language barrier, these groups were essentially cut off from the state legal system. And yet, rather than disintegrate into chaotic disorder, they were able to privately supply themselves with the rules of behavior and dispute-settlement procedures necessary to maintain peaceful, stable, and highly structured communities. Furthermore, virtually none of the law that orders our interpersonal relationships was produced by the intentional actions of central governments. Our commercial law arose almost entirely from the Law Merchant, a non-governmental set of rules and procedures developed by merchants to quickly and peacefully resolve disputes and facilitate commercial relations. Property, tort, and criminal law are all the products of common law processes by which rules of behavior evolve out of and are informed by the particular circumstances of actual human controversies. In fact, a careful study of Anglo-American legal history will demonstrate that almost all of the law which facilitates peaceful human interaction arose in this way. On the other hand, the source of the law which produces oppression and social division is almost always the state. Measures that impose religious or racial intolerance, economic exploitation, one group's idea of "fairness," or another's of "community" or "family" values virtually always originate in legislation, the law consciously made by the central government. If the purpose of the law really is to bring order to human existence, then it is fair to say that the law actually made by the state is precisely the law that does not work.

  21. #20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PierzStyx View Post
    This is the start of a longer article by Dr. John Hasnas, a doctor of economics and law at Georgetown University as well as a Senior Fellow of the CATO Institute. It is totally work reading in toto. I think his conclusion is inescapable in the end: The rule of law is a myth that is perpetuated by those in power in order to secure their positions and the obedience of those not in power.
    Yes indeed. This is an argument I've made over the years when I feel someone is close enough to the truth to listen to it. We do now and always have lived in "anarchy". The sheeple are tricked into thinking there is something called "goonerment" so they will not resist but those at the top know. Those at the top don't follow "laws" for a reason... They know there's no "authority" for them. It's all a trick and they are hiding behind the curtains pulling the levers to make smoke and fire to scare sheeple into saluting the flag and singing the magic song.

    It's anarchy now and it's always been anarchy. It only requires that the sheeple pull the wool out of their eyes to see that NO ONE has more "authority" than anyone else and the whole house of cards falls in an instant. All oppression would vanish like a flash of smoke from the hand of a magician and everyone would see that they are truly FREE. They only need to exercise their liberty to have it...
    BEWARE THE CULT OF "GOVERNMENT"

    Christian Anarchy - Our Only Hope For Liberty In Our Lifetime!
    Sonmi 451: Truth is singular. Its "versions" are mistruths.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ChristianAnarchist

    Use an internet archive site like
    THIS ONE
    to archive the article and create the link to the article content instead.

  22. #21

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ChristianAnarchist View Post
    Yes indeed. This is an argument I've made over the years when I feel someone is close enough to the truth to listen to it. We do now and always have lived in "anarchy". The sheeple are tricked into thinking there is something called "goonerment" so they will not resist but those at the top know. Those at the top don't follow "laws" for a reason... They know there's no "authority" for them. It's all a trick and they are hiding behind the curtains pulling the levers to make smoke and fire to scare sheeple into saluting the flag and singing the magic song.

    It's anarchy now and it's always been anarchy. It only requires that the sheeple pull the wool out of their eyes to see that NO ONE has more "authority" than anyone else and the whole house of cards falls in an instant. All oppression would vanish like a flash of smoke from the hand of a magician and everyone would see that they are truly FREE. They only need to exercise their liberty to have it...
    respectfully submitted Sir.

    is it possible... to be a "proper" Anarchist.

    if you work for someone else?

    or,

    does that definition, require self-employment?
    "If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough." - Albert Einstein

    "for I have sworn upon the altar of god eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. - Thomas Jefferson.

  23. #22

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HVACTech View Post
    respectfully submitted Sir.

    is it possible... to be a "proper" Anarchist.

    if you work for someone else?

    or,

    does that definition, require self-employment?
    Of course an anarchist can work for someone else. You can do any kind of contract, written or verbal, that you like. I can work for your plumbing business for $24 per hour and our agreement will spell out what you expect me to do. If I fail to do it you can tell me to take a hike and if you ask me to do things that we did not agree to I can tell you to take a hike. That's personal contract between two people and both can be anarchists (or not)...
    BEWARE THE CULT OF "GOVERNMENT"

    Christian Anarchy - Our Only Hope For Liberty In Our Lifetime!
    Sonmi 451: Truth is singular. Its "versions" are mistruths.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ChristianAnarchist

    Use an internet archive site like
    THIS ONE
    to archive the article and create the link to the article content instead.

  24. #23

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ChristianAnarchist View Post
    Of course an anarchist can work for someone else. You can do any kind of contract, written or verbal, that you like. I can work for your plumbing business for $24 per hour and our agreement will spell out what you expect me to do. If I fail to do it you can tell me to take a hike and if you ask me to do things that we did not agree to I can tell you to take a hike. That's personal contract between two people and both can be anarchists (or not)...
    what you have described sir. is simply the free market at work.

    around here... we have master Anarchists.
    those who can describe to the proper degree. perfect Anarchy at it's finest.

    I work for myself. and my customers call me because they want to.
    and that makes me.
    the ultimate Anarchist.
    "If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough." - Albert Einstein

    "for I have sworn upon the altar of god eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. - Thomas Jefferson.

  25. #24

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HVACTech View Post
    what you have described sir. is simply the free market at work.

    around here... we have master Anarchists.
    those who can describe to the proper degree. perfect Anarchy at it's finest.

    I work for myself. and my customers call me because they want to.
    and that makes me.
    the ultimate Anarchist.
    Yes indeed. Free markets are "anarchy" at work (no rulers). Everyone has a say in all contracts entered into and no one can force another into contract...
    BEWARE THE CULT OF "GOVERNMENT"

    Christian Anarchy - Our Only Hope For Liberty In Our Lifetime!
    Sonmi 451: Truth is singular. Its "versions" are mistruths.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ChristianAnarchist

    Use an internet archive site like
    THIS ONE
    to archive the article and create the link to the article content instead.

  26. #25

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HVACTech View Post
    I work for myself. and my customers call me because they want to.
    and that makes me.
    the ultimate Anarchist.
    Good for you!
    Unlicensed, unregistered, and tax scofflaw too!
    All modern revolutions have ended in a reinforcement of the power of the State.
    -Albert Camus

  27. #26

    Default

    We do not have rule of law and frankly never have here.
    All statutory law systems are rule BY law, which is not the same thing.
    All stateless law systems have been common law systems that are not necessarily even codified.
    Yet it is pretty clear that they did a better job at instituting rule of law, because there were no rulers to look to for justice, and as there was still a market for justice, the market provided a solution.
    There are no crimes against people.
    There are only crimes against the state.
    And the state will never, ever choose to hold accountable its agents, because a thing can not commit a crime against itself.

  28. #27

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fisharmor View Post
    We do not have rule of law and frankly never have here.
    All statutory law systems are rule BY law, which is not the same thing.
    All stateless law systems have been common law systems that are not necessarily even codified.
    Yet it is pretty clear that they did a better job at instituting rule of law, because there were no rulers to look to for justice, and as there was still a market for justice, the market provided a solution.
    that was REALLY cute dude.. did you imagine that all by yourself?
    and if I might ask himself...
    can thou art describe.. a "stateless law system"

    or have I confused herself?
    and she cannot "codify" such a thing as this?
    Last edited by HVACTech; 10-11-2017 at 10:55 PM. Reason: LOL!
    "If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough." - Albert Einstein

    "for I have sworn upon the altar of god eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. - Thomas Jefferson.

  29. #28

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HVACTech View Post
    that was REALLY cute dude.. did you imagine that all by yourself?
    and if I might ask himself...
    can thou art describe.. a "stateless law system"

    or have I confused herself?
    and she cannot "codify" such a thing as this?
    Dude, I really do think you need to stop huffing PVC glue.
    We've been over this, and if you don't remember it, that's your problem.
    I'm pretty sure we've been over all of the stuff you're pretending not to know multiple times now. Which means you are either a troll or mentally ill.
    There are no crimes against people.
    There are only crimes against the state.
    And the state will never, ever choose to hold accountable its agents, because a thing can not commit a crime against itself.

  30. #29

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fisharmor View Post
    Dude, I really do think you need to stop huffing PVC glue.
    We've been over this, and if you don't remember it, that's your problem.
    I'm pretty sure we've been over all of the stuff you're pretending not to know multiple times now. Which means you are either a troll or mentally ill.
    Ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is where an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.

    I can define what a "stateless Law System" is dude.
    it is called $#@!ing Nature.
    and we have been over this before.

    Nature has Laws you know.
    and they do not need to be "stated"

    your turn.
    "If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough." - Albert Einstein

    "for I have sworn upon the altar of god eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. - Thomas Jefferson.

  31. #30

    Default

    http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...-Kafkatrapping

    Kafkatrapping

    Model M: “The act of arguing against the theory of anti-{sin,racism,sexism,homophobia,oppression} demonstrates that you are either {sinful,racist,sexist, homophobic, oppressive} or do not understand the theory of anti-{sin,racism,sexism,homophobia,oppression}, and your argument can therefore be dismissed as either corrupt or incompetent.”
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast





Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-22-2015, 03:42 PM
  2. Tom Woods : Rule of Law is a Myth
    By ClydeCoulter in forum Political Philosophy & Government Policy
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 05-19-2014, 08:11 AM
  3. Replies: 50
    Last Post: 08-24-2012, 07:13 PM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-21-2011, 08:08 PM
  5. Rule by Fear or Rule by Law? - Former Congressman Dan Hamburg
    By RlxdN10sity in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 02-22-2008, 10:37 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •