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.

What Do We Do When The "System" Fails As It Has?

The question that, so far as I can see, nobody is asking is this: what is to be done when political systemic corruption is so deep and so obvious that no reasonable hope remains that those in whom the Public Trust has been vested will do the right things in a given situation such as the one at hand?

Protest has through the decades availed us nothing. Mass disobedience?  We who claim ourselves lovers of liberty cannot get it up to put a brewery out of business, so why speak of such actions to a population that has thus far been unwilling to get out of its recliners?  Impotent half-measures at best avail nothing effective. The Constitution is not that much help precisely because it expresses no remedy with sufficient explicitness for those who are morally bereft by choice, whether conscious or otherwise.

If special investigators can be called upon, who makes the call? Un-special prosecutors? Judges?  Congressmen?  Presidents?  The village dog catcher?  How does one pick such prosecutors in an environment that has gone so sour with partisan bile, bias, and blatant corruption that no longer makes even the least effort to disguise itself?

It is clear that the sword may have to play a part in the remedy, but who makes that call and by what means would it be taken into action without precipitating civil war due either to the gross misunderstandings or the logical extensions of the bias and corruption under which we now so thoroughly suffer?

We're in what I can only describe as a "tight corner", and there is going to be hell to pay no matter what we do now, thanks to the current state of mean corruption in the American soul. We have allowed things to go far too far, such that fighting for all we are worth now shows a greatly attenuated promise for success. And even if "we" win, what are the prospects that we only serve ourselves to perpetrate yet another flavor of tyranny upon ourselves due to the self-same corruptions that got us into the last one in the first place?

Investigate EVERYBODY in "government", try the guilty, execute them en masse, confiscate every asset they hold, reduce their immediate families to forced penury for no less than five generations, and hold up what we have done as a warning to all comers that the era of the tyrant is over, once and for all and that the only zero-tolerance policy shall be regarding the violation of a Man's rights by anyone who takes an oath of good faith and competent service. Is such a dream even possible any longer?  Is our corruption not so extensive, so broad, and so bottomlessly deep that such outcomes and the maintenance of a victorious state do not prove as ephemeral now as they have been in all revolutions past?

I want a nation where if you cannot put up, don't step up because you will be punished with grim and just vengeance, PERIOD. Such brutish force is all that such people understand and respect. Anything less is to flirt with suicide.

Like it or not, the time is upon us to choose who and what we and our posterity are to be:  Free men or Weakmen - willing slaves, grateful for the paltry crumbs that fall from the whipmaster's table and ever subject to his whim and caprice.  There is no sanctum of evasion this time because evasion is, in fact, the default vote for slavery, pretty or otherwise.

So take care as to your decision because yours is not the only life to be ruined by choosing incorrectly.

God bless you all, and until next time please accept my best wishes.

The Hidden Truth Of Slippery Slopes

Copouts about slippery slopes to hell are also slippery slopes to hell.

We are either responsible for our choices or we are not. If we are, then there are no slippery slopes because responsible men head down those slopes knowingly and with intent, for better or worse, the latter being most often the case, it seems.

We hamstring ourselves with these false beliefs that obfuscate the real truth, that we are indeed responsible for what we say, think, and do. 

Know what is right and wrong at the most basic levels and then CHOOSE what you will do in that knowledge. It is exactly our collective failure to do this that has lead us into the deep end of the septic tank where we now find ourselves slowly sinking below the level where we will be able to continue to breathe.

I'd like to suggest we start knocking off the enforcers, but we cannot even get it up to put a company like Anheuser Busch out of business as a show of who it is that is really in charge of things, pretty well proving that though we should be, we are not. How much less, the prospects of engaging in mass disobedience against the Tyrant and, more particularly, the enforcers? And if we have no hope of pulling off even that relatively meager expression of dissent, how in hell could we even dream of dropping those instruments of tyranny where they stand?
And even so, when they were all gone, then what? And I mean what about the hundred million or more of us (and here I speak only of America - let the rest of the world fend for itself, which they will not) who expect all that "free" stuff that would then no longer be forthcoming?

No matter how you slice that melon, we will have to go to hot, shooting war in order to achieve even a modest relief from the daily tyrannies we have brought upon ourselves over the last century or two. Theye are not the only tyrants, nor their overt enforcers: the willing obedient are the greatest tyrants of all, for their numbers are legion, their corruptions vast, and their avarice without bottom or edge.
We have indeed met the enemy, and he is us.

Seriously pal, what does one do in a situation so nearly to being hopeless as that? You draw your shit up and do what is right, come what may. Note "come what may".

We have nothing to lose by fighting; nothing, that is, for which it is worth to lay down for Themme. What value a house, a car, a pile of gold, if you are nothing but a slave who holds those meager possessions at the whim and deign of a scumbag who could not be trusted even to rape your children predictably?
Consider that at least fifty years ago the slavery was relatively pretty. There were procedures in place to better guarantee just treatment of the mean man by Themme and their agents. We no longer enjoy even those pathetic crumbs from the Despot's table, and that is all they ever were, mere crumbs doled out at the whim and caprices of devils who would have happily murdered your forebears and their children, had they been able to get away with it. But they needed them for labor and taxes and, of course, their eternal and masturbatory self-aggrandizement.

But now we have technologies that render many of us extraneous and the day will come when Theye will be able to wipe the bulk of the useless eaters from the face of the earth and feel no absence whatsoever, but only a sense of self-satisfies relief, along with thanks to whatever demon-entity it is to which the bend their knees in obsequious, reward-seeking worship.

Seriously now, we really have nothing at all to lose by fighting, except our chains and the ever-present threat to our lives that those bastard spawn hold over us every second of every day. Some fates are far, far worse than death and loss of all one's material assets. Without liberty, life loses its value rather precipitously, and yet here we find ourselves, degraded to utterly as to no longer even feel the least tinge of shame as what we have allowed to be heaped upon our lives, as if there were not a single fiber of self-respect remaining to us as we clutch at our cell phones, terrified they will no longer occupy our thoughts and keep us from seeing the sad, ugly, and pitiable truth about our existences on this earthly plane. We should the most of us be burning with red-faced shame, but all we do is continue to grasp at empty illusions of actual lives worth the living, instead of our hollow existences made that way through the kind ministrations of those who see YOU as nothing but another commodity for trade and transformation into obedient automatons, whether gotten by enticement, terror, of some smarmy combination of the two, which is precisely that to which we are treated daily.

I don't even pity humanity any longer, but only despise it, my exceptions being for the small handfuls of souls who stand tall, middle-fingers raised to the Tyrant, whose enforcers usually take their pounds of flesh therefrom in one form or another.

So again I say fight. Disobey at every turn and kill in defense of that which was bestowed each of us by the Divine. To do less is to merit nothing better than the extinction that Theye so clearly hold in store for most of us.  And if you're going to your doom, should you not at least go with eyes wide open, on your feet as men, rather than as Weakmen?

Once again: little or nothing to lose.

Be good to yourselves, please, and until next time, kindly accept my best wishes.

Manifesto of Absolute Liberty

Freedom admits no degree.

It does not exist on a sliding scale, to be rationed or permitted in sanctioned doses by rulers, majorities, or committees. Freedom either is, or it is not. And when it is not—when even one aspect of the individual’s natural sovereignty is subjected to consentless interference—what remains is not freedom, but servitude adorned in rhetoric and gilded bars.

This is the first truth that men must recover if humanity is to survive as a species fit for self-rule. The false comfort of “partial freedom” is the oldest lie of tyrants, beguiling men with the illusion of autonomy while the chains are quietly refashioned. A cage, no matter how spacious or polished, remains a cage.

The just measure of liberty is simple: a man is free so long as he trespasses on none of his neighbors’ equal rights, and none trespass upon his. From that compact arises order—not imposed by decree, but born of mutual respect. It is the only legitimate boundary upon action and ambition. Every other restraint is tyranny disguised as “public good,” “safety,” or “progress.”

All history affirms this pattern. With each generation, central power whispers promises of security and equality, harvesting obedience in trade for independence. The pattern ends always in the same destination: submission, poverty of spirit, and the slow death of genius.

Therefore, let it be understood in no uncertain terms: freedom is not a grant of government, but the permanent condition of the free-born mind. The role of government, if it is to exist at all, is purely custodial—to guard and never to govern. It is to contain no ambition beyond protection of the rights from which its authority is derived.

When those entrusted with power defy that inviolable limit, they forfeit all legitimacy. To tolerate their trespass is to invite servitude for oneself and for every descendant. One generation’s negligence becomes the next generation’s chains.

We now stand again at that crossing. The pretense of nuance must perish here. On one side stands the eternal principle of voluntary life among free equals; on the other, the great gray machine of coercion masquerading as civilization. Every man must now decide which he serves.

The time for half-measures and polite equivocations is gone. Choose well, for this may be the last choosing left to free men.

God bless us all, and until next time, please accept my best wishes.