The Definitions Of "Law" and "Crime"

I have found it surprising, astonishing, and appalling that of all the areas of human endeavor, that area of human affairs and endeavors which we commonly refer to as "law" shows no evidence of a properly formal, complete, correct, clear, and concise definition of the very term that it claims as its raison d'être.  So glaring is this deficiency, any thinking man immediately wonders whether those presumably learned scholars of the law could be so careless or lacking in so basic an element of knowledge that they "forgot" to define the term with sufficiency or did not know how to do so properly.  I find it nearly impossible that such has been the case, and must therefore conclude that this is so due to intention.  After all, if one works with a vagary such as the definitions of "law" as found in every dictionary of law that I have been able to find, then one remains comparatively free to do as he pleases, whether he is a legislator, a prosecutor, an enforcer, or in some cases even a defender.  We see endless examples of criminal defendants who contrive rather creative twists and bends of "law" pursuant to their goal of escaping justice, do we not?

That this truth has escaped the notice of practically every human being walking the earth gives one even greater reason for gastrointestinal churn... or at least it should.

Of all the endeavors of man, law is the one where rigor is so paramountly important.  In matters of law, most especially criminal cases, the potential exists for altering the status of a man from that of a freeman to that of a criminal.  With that demotion comes some form of recision that then disparages some or even all of the convicted party's fundamental rights, a most gravely serious matter.  How then is it in any manner or measure acceptable that one of the two most centrally crucial terms that relate directly to the quality of the practice of law founds on definitions that do not rise even to the ridiculous?  Something here is very much amiss and I aim to at least make the effort to correct this gross error.  As for the other crucial term, that would be "crime", believe it or not.  But take not my word for it; look it up in as many law dictionaries as you can grab and see for yourself the definition that borders on the idiotic for its utter lack of the least shred of correctness or rigor.  I will address the definition of "crime" at another time, but for now let us focus on "law".

Firstly, I propose a change of spelling from "law" to "Law".  For one thing, it is a noun of presumed import.  Therefore, I shall treat it as such, and in doing so I will render unto the utterance the gravity of moment that it deserves in my opinion.  So out with the wretched lower-case misspelling of that which should hold our respect and good esteem, and in with the properly dignified graphic representation.  From this point on, "law" shall be semantically no different in its indications than those of mere "statute", which we shall make clear now is naught but the arbitrary whim of men who claim authority they do not in reality possess.  That such men hold at their beck other men, those with guns and badges who will go forth into the world and commit whatever flavor of outrage, violation, and transgression against the sovereignty of innocent and free men, it does not follow that the fact of it implies right and just authority.  All it says is that one set of criminals is supported by yet another set, willing and often eager to do the bidding of the former.  None of this is a mark of a free land where people are in point of positive fact at liberty to live and act as they please, so long as they refrain from trespassing against the equal claims of their fellow men.  Being normatively free is a meaningless condition when one is not free in the positive reality in which he lives his daily life.

And secondly, I now propose the following definition of "Law" for the sake of humanity's future - for if we are to have a future worthy of the mention, we must then adjust the means and methods of governing those individuals who have failed to govern themselves.  In order to be able to do this properly, we must first be able to properly determine when someone has failed in this duty to himself and to those around him.  Without the proper means at hand and in proper practice, our claim of being civilized becomes a hollow-ringing lie of the most immediately dangerous sort.  If one man stands unsafe from bumbling or intentional or indifferent malevolence, then we all stand in equal danger.  And so I offer to the world the definition of Law.  To wit:


Law (n.): A rule of action, enforceable by right according to objective principles, that:

1. is founded upon one or more axiomatic and objectively demonstrable truths;
2. follows strictly and necessarily from the postulations upon which it is based;
3. conforms perfectly to the propositions from which it strictly follows;
4. addresses only objectively criminal acts committed by one human being against another human being (excluding acts against oneself);
5. by virtue of the previous points, never violates the rights of non-criminals
6. applies as it stands universally and without exemption to all human beings whose actions fall within its scope, granting no immunity to any individual, office, or institution, including those responsible for creating, interpreting, or enforcing the Law;
7. positively or negatively restricts human behavior, by either prohibiting or compelling certain actions.

Law concerns itself exclusively with acts mala in sé—acts wrong by their very nature—and never with acts mala prohibita, which are the product only of arbitrary prohibition. Statutes addressing acts mala prohibita that are violative of fundamental human rights are by that virtue invalid, unjust, and reflective solely of the wantonly capricious, ill-reasoned, and therefore invalid will of legislators lacking rightful authority. Such statutes are not Law; they are null and void, bearing no valid force of Law, their enforcement constituting a felonious coloring of authority resulting in egregious and criminally intense violations of the rights of free and sovereign men.

Any exception to a Law, whether specified within the Law to which it applies, or established by another Law, must independently satisfy all the requirements necessary to constitute a valid Law.

As a side note, absence or failure to fully, correctly, and explicitly satisfy any of these necessary conditions renders a putative Law as null, void, and without force. Passage of such non-Law constitutes a felony in accord with the requirement that officials do no harm, as does enactment and any attempt at enforcement. All such attempts to enforce colored edicts constitute felonious acts against which those who have been or would be violated may act in rightful defense of self or others.

It is most curious that we find the definitions of "law" in the legal dictionaries to be of such paltry and insufficient character as to leave one wondering why.  The same may be said of "crime", the definitions of which are equally squalid in their qualities.

But with a sufficiently rigorous definition of Law, we can also put the question of the definition of "crime" equally well to rest.  To wit:

crime (n.): 1. Any violation of Law.  2. Any violation of the rights of free and sovereign men. 

It should be noted that the commission of a crime reduces a man's status to that of "criminal", leaving them subject to the hazards of defensive measures by their victims or the agents of their victims.  The commission of a crime renders null and void the criminal's rights as they may apply to the crimes they have committed. No man holds the right to transgress upon the innocent.  In so doing he forfeits his own rights under a victim's authority to defend that which is rightly his and which has been threatened or damaged by the criminal.

Words matter.  They matter more than anything else in our lives, for the world in which we live is built upon them.  Without them, we humans would be nothing more than sacks of flesh and bone.  And if Law is so central to the maintenance of a properly free civil order between men, then these definitions immediately become clear as to the important positions they occupy in the scheme of human affairs.

The legal "establishment" must be prevailed upon to adopt these definitions, whether by persuasion, attraction, or through brute force for the sake of everything that is good in the human world.

Be well, be wise, be honorable, and until next time, please accept my best wishes.