What is Law?
There are two sets of laws that we encounter every day: Man's law, and Natural law. The difference is simple:
A commandment on the way something is to behave.
An observation on the way something does behave.
You can never violate a natural law, because Natural laws are all-encompassing of behavior, and no matter what you do, you will be part of that Natural law because you are part of Nature. The need for Man's law arises because of lack of moral virtue in people, as so aptly put by character Diana Trent (Stephanie Cole) on the BBC television series, Waiting for God:
"No one is capable of moral decisions, so they make laws that preclude the necessity of having to think for themselves."
This inability to make a moral decision generates the need for Man's law, which if examined closely, is actually designed to be violated. Man's law originates from the principles of governance, where one or more people decide that you do not have the ability to think and act reasonably on your own in a society, but they do, so they will tell you what to do and how to behave. This is what creates "government."
Government gets its existence from four sources:
- Fear. The most popular way to establish a government, based in the concept of: "obey without question, or lose your privileges" (you have no natural rights, only government-granted "civil rights"). Most systems of government fall under this category, including modern democracy, for it is a common practice to deny "government benefits" unless you vote in some particular manner. If you resist, you will lose all your civil rights and be politically imprisoned.
- Force. The "oldie but goodie" used by tribal and despotic systems. Resistance is futile, unless you are bigger and meaner than the current leader. The Laws of Survival of the Fittest and Alpha Male. Resistance results in death.
- Consent. Government by social compact, where people are elected to perform specific tasks as a proxy. This is the basis of the constitutional republic, but requires constant vigilance by the people to make sure their consent is not assumed. This was the original idea behind these united States of America. (The "United States," a municipal corporation and wholly-owned subsidiary of the New World Order, is fear based).
- Hope. Typical of religious forms of government, where the hope of a better life in the future (not necessarily your lifetime, but perhaps the lifetime of your children) is promised, if you follow the leader or system. Resistance results in excommunication or some other form of expulsion.
Author Boston T. Party makes the observation that, "all governments are legal monopolies with 100% market share." A most apt observation. They have no competition and their "customers" are criminals. Therefore, the only way government can grow is to increase its size, so it requires a constant influx of criminals to convict and imprison in order to hire more police, more judges and more guards. If no one broke any laws, there would be no need for government. This is the danger of governments—they do not operate for the general welfare of the people, but to the detriment of the people by making more and more things illegal, to keep a constant supply of customers and to constantly grow.
The direct, observable result is that government desires its laws to be broken; for that's how it gets "customers" and justifies its existence. And no matter what political officials say, government will never pass laws regulating itself, but will always seek to increase regulation and extend its influence. Even if they appear to pass restricting legislation, fear not... they will remove the restrictions as soon as the issue goes from the publics eye. (For an example, examine the Federal Reserve Act, and how all the restrictive provisions were edited out in future legislation.)
From the Magna Carta forward... this is why Constitutions were created—as a limitation on government, not a limitation on people.
Oh, the pain...!
The tools government uses to get customers and increase size are based upon two simple factors: fear and comfort. In the United States, with its supposed two-party system, the Democrats utilize fear, and the Republicans utilize comfort, which is obvious by their political approach to election:
Democrats are the bashers and fear mongers. They constantly accuse the Republicans that they wish to take away all social benefits and that they will destroy the country. Democrats have little to offer on their own, as their tactics are based in making you afraid that if you don't vote for them, you will lose everything you have.
Republicans are the capitalists and promise a good and better life... if you take a bite of their apple. More benefits, more handouts, vote for them and live a comfortable life, at no expense to yourself. Lots of employment (as a corporate slave), cheap goods, and plenty of them.
It all comes down to a matter of security. Vote Democratic and exchange your liberty for security. Vote Republican, and exchange your liberty for comfort, and you can only be comfortable if you are secure. But note that the end result from both parties is the same: loss of liberty. The fewer liberties you have, the more rules you must follow, increasing the chance that you will break the rules and add to the criminal customers of the government, who will have to form new agencies and hire more people to deal with this latest "crime wave."
Notice that comfort builds prisons, entangled with dependencies and reduced freedom, but discomfort builds skill, independence, creativity and inventiveness to aid the quest for comfort.
Prison Does Not Always Have Bars
In the world today, the only people who are not prisoners are the ruling elite, who live above the law (the New World Order). Everyone else is a slave and prisoner and most don't even realize it, for debt is the cheapest prison to run. As long as they have their extortion schemes (taxation), they can constantly pull enough money out of each person's pocket to control how much freedom each person has. Remember that governments do not work towards the general welfare of the governed, but attempt to make criminals out of everyone, to keep themselves in business.
Examine the creation of government (process defined by brent..johnson, the American Sovereign):
|who consent to form|
|which regulate||which regulate|
And you will see that People are always above the law and citizens, persons and employees are never above the law. Which are you? This comes down to the concept of the social compact, and consent.
But always remember, if you sacrifice liberty for security, you will have neither liberty nor security. (Ben Franklin)
Jean-Jacques Rousseau held that, as far back as the 18th century, "in the pre-social state, man was un-warlike and timid, and law resulted from the combination of men who agreed, for mutual protection, to surrender individual freedom of actions." Government rests on the consent of the governed.
Consent is a concurrence of wills or voluntary yielding. Most believe that living in a "democracy" is the highest form of government, for they can give their consent every few years with their vote. Since government requires the consent of the governed, and probably wouldn't get consent if they explained their true motivations of creating more criminals and increasing regulation, they adopted the technique of implied consent, through such contractual obligations as the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC).
Implied consent states that if you do not disagree with a proposition, you agree (and give your consent). Nowhere does it say that you have to be fully aware of the facts, or even that someone has made a proposition. It is assumed that you, as a citizen, are aware of the goings-on of government. This is the primary technique used to destroy liberty in today's population and is now accepted as the default.
Implied consent originates from the despotic, force-based government systems, where the big guy with the club stands over you and asks if you will follow his leadership. If you do not challenge, than you agree, and slink away back to your cave. And if you think this has changed with time, look at the current "opt-out" programs used by corporate advertising. If you don't tell them not to distribute your name, phone and address to junk mailers, then they assume consent that you want the junk mail. Of course, if you decide to "opt out," it usually takes them 6 weeks to "file the paperwork," during which time your personal details have been sold to thousands of other companies, where you then need to "opt out" again and again. Can you see how the "implied consent" system works, how it grows exponentially and is virtually impossible to stop? This is why it has been so successful in using contractual agreements to override inherent rights.
Another American example is when your parents get you a social security number when you are born. The application is an adhesion contract, making you a "citizen" and ward of the State, where you exchange all your sovereign liberties for the promise of future government benefits. When you turn 18, you must give your consent to this contract as a legal adult, except that nobody ever tells you about it. One month after your 18th birthday, you have given your implied consent to having a social security number and becoming a "citizen" of the United States, under the 14th Amendment (you are no longer one of the People, but just a "person"). After all, it was a matter of public record and you are expected to know the law. All 50,000 pages of published law, and the millions of pages of court cases supporting it. Ignorance of the law is no excuse, even though it would take an estimated 852 years to learn all of the current laws and supporting decisions now published in the United States.
The Social Compact
The socialist state is based on proposition that all things belong to the state, and a portion is temporarily leased to private individuals and organizations.
However, the social compact is based on the proposition of ownership of self, land and property, and a private individual agrees to lease such rights, land or property for specific use to the state (and can withdraw his consent at any time).
Through the use of implied consent, the true social compact is virtually non-existent today, having been replaced by socialism and "activist groups," where, as Ms. Diana Trent puts it, people are "defining 'teams' to inflict their views upon others."
Social compacts do not require enforcement, as they are created with the knowing consent of the members. And if a member does not give their consent, then they are not a party to the compact, and can demand nothing from it.
In the socialist state, enforcement is required through the use of the power by the elite running the state. But remember that all history teaches the same lesson: the ruthless exercise of power is always successful. A half-hearted and sporadic use of force only strengthens the cause against which it is deployed. It is also said that tyranny grows with "career." As such, any state engaged in socialism, rather than social compact, will degenerate back to fascism or despotism because to have total control, it must control totally. No liberty, and a 100% crime rate—the master/slave system. Such a system is illogical since it cannot survive, but it is currently being implemented world-wide, through the New World Order.
We have examined the existing system of law and government and seen that it is not a viable system. So what is? In nature, the simpler something is, the less likely it is to be disordered (and the easier to repair if it becomes disordered). The solution is simple: the best government is no government. But there is a need for social compacts and working together. Therefore, the next simplest system is self-government, utilizing social compacts for limited functions. Self-government will not provide security or comfort, but will promote the seeking of it, thus building a more intelligent, more ethical and more productive population. The trick is to build in safeguards to keep those executing social compacts from making careers out of them, and to dissolve the compact when no longer needed.