Do Not Read This, pt. 17

(have you ever read the entirety of a legal contract before you signed it? me neither. and, well, that’s the idea. the idea is, that it is a lot easier for you to pull the wool over the eyes of someone if they can’t understand what the hell you are saying, but think they do. in other words, “law”, “gov’t legislation”, is intentionally confusing and unnecessarily complicated wording designed to fool people into acting against their own best interests. which creates a condition where you must hire a lawyer who charges you an extravagant hourly rate to help steer you through the muck of it all. even then, you might be wise to hire another lawyer to make sure the first one is not messing around with you. all laws are written to benefit the people who create them at the expense of those who do not create them. if you knew you were being swindled, you wouldn’t put up with it and they know that. hence, the expert mind-f*ckery of law and legislation. if you don’t like it, well, tough sh*t. “no wait,” they say, “you can always sue “us” in a court of law”— you know, “equal access” and all that. by now you’ve learned how that kind of thing works out. you think you can duke it out with the devil on his own playground and win?

the “correct” interpretation of the above quote, spoken by a would-be revolutionary from Shakespeares’ Henry VI, part 2, depends upon who you are. if you are a lawyer, it is a somewhat humorous gibe at the indispensable role lawyers play in the administration of “justice” whereby “evil mankind” is forcibly kept from descending into rank brutality and chaos. if you are not a lawyer, it is just a very humorous gibe. period. no explanation needed. we all know why it is funny.)

Law and Disorder

“We are a nation of laws, not men” is an oft-heard phrase. But what does it mean? If men (or women) do not create the laws, then apparently they are discovered. What is their source? In Christian mythology, Moses is handed “The Law” by the omni god. Is this the alleged source of the laws “not of men”?

We are all admonished to “obey the law”. Never mind that “American law” exists only by not obeying “British law”. Nor is there any mention of the fact that more murders have been committed inside the law than outside. Nevertheless, we are told and told again to “obey the law”. Suppose it can’t be done? What then?

First, if you are to obey “The Law”, you must first understand it. Second, if you are to obey a law, then this law cannot be contradicted by another law lest you break “The Law” in obeying a law. Do you know of and understand every law on the books? If not, how do you know at any time that you are not breaking the law, or know that contradictions do not make it impossible to obey “The Law”?

Reverence for “The Law” is just another element of the sacred idea regarded by believers as immune to questioning. Setting aside all the implied mystical causes, “The Law” is simply the personal preference of an individual, or individuals, given “official status” and imposed by the dominant physical force in a particular geographical area, or all geographical areas, as in “international law”. “The Law” is synonymous with governmental system, which in turn is synonymous with initiation of force and coercion. All the while, its’ declared purpose is protection of “rights” and the maintenance of peace and order. Thus, the underlying rationale of “The Law” is implementation of initiation of force and coercion to prevent initiation of force and coercion. In other words, as the reasoning goes, it is necessary to violate “rights” in order to protect them. Since government exists only by denial of the individual, the actual effect of its’ self-contradictory base is violation of the individual in perpetuity with the consequence of “Law and Disorder”.

Most think of “The Law” as opposing and discouraging fraud, theft, and murder and regard it as a protector of individual rights. If they think of the thousands of regulatory laws at all, it is usually with an attitude that these laws are protection as well. They fail to see the actual contradictory base premises and derivative contradictions that reveal that “The Law” is not what they imagine it to be. Laws are playthings of the “gods”. Do not imagine that the “gods” who create the laws will be bound by them. That which is forbidden to you is the directive and sacred duty of the “gods”. If you believe there are laws against theft and murder, look again. These laws are merely to keep some “state property” from destroying other “state property”. If in doubt, try to withdraw from the system. Just declare your life as your own. If you refuse to pay taxes or refuse to abide by numerous other laws prohibiting you from exercising your own non-imposing choice, you will quickly discover that the imagined omni protector is in reality finite individuals ready and willing to use whatever force is necessary to bring you back into the fold— punishment or death.

The thousands upon thousands of regulatory laws administered by the personnel of thousands of bureaucratic departments not only creates a huge burden of administrative and enforcement costs, the sole purpose of these laws and departments is to favor the personal preference of some over others. In the name of “protection”, these regulations oppose the subjective value principle of market and promise to destroy it. Favoritism and nothing else is the singular purpose and function of “The Law”, economic, regulatory, or otherwise. The illusion that the “government guardians” are honest and competent whereas those they regulate are not is the only belief that supports economic regulation. It is all part of the god concept which ascribes to “gods and governments” certain “virtuous qualities” not found in any of the individual parts.

As always, to grasp an aspect of reality, entity, or relationship, it must be differentiated and viewed in contrast. What is in contrast to “The Law”? Non-law, of course. Since this is regarded by nearly all as not possible and not an alternative, there is no single word in “common language usage” to denote and connote the circumstance of which I speak. Since this idea is opposed to “The Law” and the practice of such is prohibited by “The Law”, we shall have to content ourselves with a hypothetical view; a hypothetical situation with all the ingredients of reality that are denied in and by the official governmental system of “The Law”.

Remember this is a hypothetical situation with specific given premises. The central premise is individual volition. Please do not speculate as to what “people might do” and fail to follow the principles. What “people might do” is equating potential with actual and denying the element of individual choice. This implicit blanket indictment of volition via the “innate evil syndrome” is precisely what is to be viewed in contrast, not incorporated in a social existence of individualism, freedom, and non-law.

Suppose there are only two individuals on the earth. Can each choose to not impose his/her personal preference upon the other by initiation of force and coercion? In other words, can each choose to live by the social premise of self-ownership? Is this possible? Can each make the choice of the philosophy of self-ownership? Let’s up the number to 20, to 200, to 2,000, or to any number of persons. Are the same options still available to each? Whatever the number, let’s now suppose that all reject the god concept and everything it expresses and implies. This means that each recognizes self and each of the other individuals as the real. This identity, the individual, is the basis for thinking and is always held in focus in social existence no matter what form of organization or independent action each may choose.

The operational social premise is self-ownership. The only prohibition is one individual (or some) imposing their will and personal preferences upon another or others. What word do I use here? The term, law, by denotation and connotation is offensive force and doesn’t fit this circumstance. Anyway, within this no-name circumstance, the singular question to be answered is whether a given act does or does not impose upon another individual or individuals. This is the only social issue of possible conflict and the only social issue to resolve.

It’s that simple. Keep in mind that individualism is a whole different set of values than the values of anti-individual beliefs. While this does not guarantee Utopia, the reference, real finite individual, and the base premise of self-ownership provides an easily seen reference by which to peacefully resolve any conflict of opinion that might arise.

Also, do not forget that we’re talking about an attitude dedicated to the reality of individualism and held as the highest value by each individual. To sustain and maintain this priority value, each will bend a long way if necessary to keep the peace and harmony. Money and power at all costs is not part of this philosophy. In the philosophy of individualism and freedom, one does not engage in theft, fraud, or pollute the air and water for wealth and power. An individualist does not refrain from such acts because of some external mandate, but because he/she knows that such actions will certainly destroy his/her highest priority value which is a life of voluntary cooperation and peace.

Now, look at the god concept society in contrast. Each of the individuals denies self even as they seek the holy grail of money and power and proposes to dictate the values and behavior of all other persons. In no way am I opposing the non-coercive accumulation of wealth; nor do I presume to decide how much is too much. I refer to money and power as a revered value in the control of individuals. I refer to the money and power syndrome as a widely accepted symbol and mark of “superiority”. Make no mistake about it— money and wealth are major factors in creating “The Law”. The superior-inferior-being anti-individual values that are the logical derivative of the god concept are the operational directives, i.e., “The Law”. This is the current system that winds up with thousands of bureaucratic departments, thousands of volumes of “The Law”, legions of administrators, lawyers, and judges all lost in a nightmare of contradiction and chaos. What’s worse, they imagine that it makes sense. How did things get into such a mess? Can the cause be anything other than the thinking that brought it about and sustains it?

Since the U.S. Constitution is the “law of the land”, let us look at the thinking behind it starting with the “revolution” and Declaration of Independence.

After prolonged confrontation and conflict in the year 1776, certain individuals took it upon themselves to denounce and overthrow “British rule” administered by King George and Co. They drew up a long list of grievances and justifications and proceeded to declare the “United States” an “independent nation”. With this document, it was made clear that they considered it a duty of the citizens to overthrow a tyrannical government (as if there is any other kind). However, I duly note that even as they named this a duty, they made it unlawful to advocate the overthrow of their ideas. In any event, our primary interest here is the thinking that served to establish the operational basis for the “new independent nation”. They wrote:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed;…”

If “these truths” are “self-evident”, “rights” are “inalienable”, and all consent to be governed, then behavior is already determined. What then, is the purpose of the compulsory force called government??? Apparently, there is considerable disagreement over the “self-evident truths” and “inalienable rights”. Why? What’s the problem in this thinking that is reflected in “The Law”?

It doesn’t take any stretch at all to conclude that “inalienable rights bestowed by our Creator” are apparently “discovered” (not invented by the mind) through knowledge of “Gods’ will” which becomes the justification for creating “The Law” which is designed to “secure rights” via “just powers derived from the consent of the governed.” Within this thinking, it follows that “The Law” is the “will of God”.

Where is the real, finite individual in this scenario? The individual is denied by the statement “just powers derived by from the consent of the governed” which preposterously assumes each individual has been consulted and found to be in agreement, to have given consent to be governed and bound by “The Law”. Accordingly, this same statement contains a blatant violation of these so-called “inalienable rights”, perpetrated by those who claim to be doing “gods’ will” by securing them.

How are these “self-evident truths” and “divinely created inalienable rights” premises going to work in practice? To get an idea, randomly select any two believers and have each draw up a list of “inalienable rights” that “God intended”. Now figure out how these conflicting “rights” of just two are to be implemented. Multiply this by the millions of believers and you begin to understand why and how thousands of laws about “lawful rights” are the source of conflict and not the solution.

Legislators, judges, lawyers, and all other purveyors and defenders of “The Law” are so caught up in, and so mentally dominated by the god concept, they are completely oblivious to the fact that they have left real individuals out of their deliberations. Having left real individuals out of their thinking, there is no objective anchor, no common frame of reference by which to make and administer “The Law”. “The Law” is without identity, and therefore, without definition. It shows.

The word, interpretation, appears often in reference to court decisions, as it must, for “The Law” is without objective reference and is undefined. “Interpretation” then becomes a euphemism for personal preference, opinionated point of view, and emotional dictates. Robed judges, well-dressed lawyers, and others go through the ritual of administering law and dispensing “justice” fully convinced of the rightness of their thinking and the sanctity of their professions. They propose to uphold the “right to do” and “the right to be done unto” without awareness of the contradiction.

The “right to be done unto” (“freedom to rule”) naturally carries the “right to compel”. Outside the official government system, economic/financial gain by initiation of force or threat of it is called robbery. Within the system, it is called “justice”. There is no law against larceny, only against independent larceny. In any event, since most regard government as an omni god and inexhaustible manna, they fail to see that a system wherein 250 million people propose to make a living by stealing from each other doesn’t have much of an economic future.

Nevertheless, the grab-game goes on and on. Each and every believer, if not looking for a direct handout, wants “government” to allocate funds to his or her personal interest and project. Naturally, the sales pitch is made in the name of “public welfare” or similar “infinite entity” beneficiary. I observe that this pitch is more successful if made by a lobbyist for the “money people”. This is especially so if combined with the spiel “saving jobs by saving economic failures”. Lockheed, Penn Central, and Chrysler are three of many that come to mind.

The “right to compel” is not restricted to economics. Compulsion is abundantly used in a perpetual effort to make all conform to the “objective natural standards of morality”. Ergo, the base purpose of “The Law” is to stamp out the “crime of individualism”. The umpteen thousands of laws forbidding non-invasive, i.e., non-imposing choice leaves no logical doubt of this intent.

Overflowing jails and prisons are evidence of the “good work” of the vice squads, i.e., “the morality police”. Many of those imprisoned are there for violating laws concerning “controlled substances”. In typical backward governmental fashion, cause is attributed to an inanimate object. The terminology employed is to deny that what is actually being controlled is the individual. As usual, they propose to resolve a psychological problem with physical force. Many years and billions of dollars later, the absurdity of this approach is clearly evident, but still they push on.

If someone, for non-medical purposes takes a mind-altering drug, it is rather obvious that they prefer the altered state of mind. If this is a problem, wouldn’t the logical approach to finding a solution contain an effort to find out what the unaltered mental state is and why the altered state is preferred? One often hears the “reason” for drug usage is that one takes drugs to escape reality. The truth is, in the confused god concept mental world of mind-dividing “objective values”, “superior-inferior beings”, and chaos in general, few ever get a look at reality. Drugs may well be a means to escape the mental torment of non-reality. What is virtually certain is that laws and physical force will never solve the problem.

Presently, there is much concern about the large number of violent crimes, and the fact that they are increasing in many areas. What are the perpetrators doing except acting as they have been taught? Are they not emulating their teacher(s) and acting upon the same values? Is it any wonder that efforts to stamp out these independent acts of violence fail?

The fact that “The Law” exists side by side with the condition of violent crimes is evidence enough that “The Law” does not work to prevent this circumstance. It is worthy of note that “The Law” not only exists physically side by side with the violent crimes, it, as indicated above, also exists philosophically side by side. It is a situation of power vs. power and nothing else. The dominant power is “The Law”, but the elusive power is non-law, i.e., non-official law. The issue is not the use of offensive force per se, the issue is regulation of the use of offensive force, or, who can do it legally and who cannot. It is an effort to prevent the use of offensive force not sanctioned by “The Law”. As deterrent, “The Law” offers the proposition of punishment for violating “The Law”. However, effectiveness depends on several factors, not the least of which is swift and certain punishment. Given the confusion of “The Law”, this “deterrent” is neither swift nor certain; nor does it take into account the psychology of the violator who will often pursue the value of power and dominance regardless of the risk.

Since “The Law” presumes to impose upon others (although most agree to the system), it is certain to encounter opposition at every turn whether in economic regulation or dealing with “street crime”. Given the compounding nature of regulation and the necessary increase in means of enforcement, eventually the system will break down from the pure mass of the situation. The contradictions, confusion, and emotional “interpretations” of “The Law”, assure an ever-expanding increase in the use of offensive physical force and an ever-expanding increase in the absurdity of it.

With “lawful rights” referenced only to feelings, chaos is a foregone conclusion. One individual may go to jail for using or dealing in a “controlled substance” while a mass murderer is turned loose because the arresting officer neglected to “read him his rights”. A serial killer is found “innocent by reason of insanity” and draws SSDI payments paid for in part by the friends and family of the victims. A conviction for theft of millions is overturned because of “unreasonable search and seizure of evidence”. Lawsuits are often a legal extortion racket surpassing the lottery as a chance to get rich quick. A prison inmate sues on the grounds that denial of cable TV is “cruel and unusual punishment”. These things are part of the daily news scene and I need not list more here.

What is abundantly clear to everyone is that while “equality under the law” may be a noble sentiment, in practice it is non-existent. Derived from the god concept mode of thinking and couched in non-definitive language usage, emotional interpretation of “The Law” is the “standard” of application. Add to this the absurd cost of legal action and “The Law” is out of economic reach of all except the rich and the indigent who receive “free counsel”. To be blunt, “The Law” is a self-contradictory, unfunny joke.