Some Thoughts on Law

The “Hero Problem”

When the state and its media bullhorns refer to armed government workers – law enforcers – as “heroes,” it’s a sign the hour is getting late.

When most people don’t draw back and spit coffee all over the keyboard at the idea, it’s minutes to midnight.

How did it become “heroic” to enforce laws?

And if it is “heroic” to enforce laws then – ipso facto  the East German Stasi, the Soviet GRU and NKVD were “heroic” also.

Crickets, usually.

Well, cognitive dissonance. Too many people don’t make such connections; see the concept behind the particular.

“Law enforcement,” like references to the United States as the “Homeland” are relatively recent rust spots on the American quarter panel; visible evidence of the underlying rot.

This is their own term, too. It is what they do – by definition.

Well, at least they are honest about it. Meanwhile, the populace in general still regards them as being there to “protect and serve,” the “thin blue line.” Both are false – and ridiculous – notions.

First, they are not there to to protect. This is not their job.

The Supreme Court has very explicitly stated this. The job of law enforcement is (wait for it) to enforce laws.

Law enforcers are under no legal obligation to protect anything – or anyone.

Indeed – hark, Officer Safety! – they are most concerned with protecting themselves, if anything. To the nth degree. Which is certainly understandable – we all value ourselves highly. But looking out for Numero Uno isn’t “heroic.”

A hero puts his own self at risk for the sake of others. Law enforcers go to great pains to not do this. The state they work for esteems their lives – their safety (whether a threat is real or imagined) far more than our lives and safety.

Note that a “hero’s” life is literally – legally – more valuable than our lives. This extends even to dogs. A “hero” can murder a family pet, without reason (beyond “I feared for my safety”) and he may be reprimanded. A citizen who defends himself against a police dog and slay the animal can be charged wth murder of a “law enforcement officer” – and will be prosecuted with extreme prejudice.

Eric Peters

The Myth of the Rule of Law

Rule of law is a myth. Yet another creation of the government supremacists to convince a slave people they are free.

For with the acceptance of the myth of the rule of law comes a blindness to the fact that laws are merely the commands of those with political power, and an increased willingness to submit oneself to the yoke of the state. Once one is truly convinced that the law is an impersonal, objective code of justice rather than an expression of the will of the powerful, one is likely to be willing not only to relinquish a large measure of one’s own freedom, but to enthusiastically support the state in the suppression of others’ freedom as well.”

But the myth of the rule of law does more than render the people submissive to state authority; it also turns them into the state’s accomplices in the exercise of its power. For people who would ordinarily consider it a great evil to deprive individuals of their rights or oppress politically powerless minority groups will respond with patriotic fervor when these same actions are described as upholding the rule of law.

The reason why the myth of the rule of law has survived for 100 years despite the knowledge of its falsity is that it is too valuable a tool to relinquish. The myth of impersonal government is simply the most effective means of social control available to the state.

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.

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.

This is because unlike the laws of nature, political laws are not consistent. The law human beings create to regulate their conduct is made up of incompatible, contradictory rules and principles; and, as anyone who has studied a little logic can demonstrate, any conclusion can be validly derived from a set of contradictory premises. This means that a logically sound argument can be found for any legal conclusion.

John Hasnas

Against The State

Government in a Free Society should not deal in probabilities. The law should deal in actions and actions alone. And then onlysofar as they damage person or property. Again, with drinking and driving, what precisely is being criminalized? Not bad driving. Not destruction of property. Not the taking of human life or reckless endangerment. The crime is having the wrong substance in your blood. Yet it is possible, in fact, to have this substance in your blood, even while driving, and not commit anything like what has traditionally called a crime.

What we have done by permitting government to criminalize the content of our blood instead of actions themselves is we have given the cops the power to make the application of the law arbitrary, capricious, and contingent on the judgment of cops and cop technicians (breathalyzers) That is, we have to wait for the government to administer a test to tell whether or not we are criminals. That’s not the way law is supposed to work. There are many factors that cause a person to drive poorly. You could be sleepy. You could be angry. Should the government be allowed to administer anger tests, or tiredness tests?

Lew Rockwell

Natural Law – The Real Law

Simple “If/Then” Logic:

If a particular man-made law is in Harmony with Natural Law, then it follows logically that it is redundant, since it is stating a Truth that is inherent, pre-existing and self-evident. Therefore it is both Irrelevant and unnecessary.

If a particular law is in Opposition to Natural Law, then it follows logically that it is both False (Incorrect) and Immoral (Harmful), or in other words, WRONG. Therefore it can not be legitimately binding upon anyone.

In Light Of Natural Law, Man’s law is…IRRELEVANT & UNNECESSARY.

Mark Passio