Only Humans Allowed...
Only Humane is accepted...
Where Same for All is the Only Rule...
Tuesday, September 6, 2016
GIFT OF TRUTH - WHAT IS LAW?
GIFT OF TRUTH - WHAT IS LAW?
What is Law?
The first order of law is Natural Law based on universal principles which agree with the nature and state of people without which the peace and happiness of society can never be preserved. Knowledge of natural laws may be attained merely by reason and from facts that agree with human nature. Natural Law exists regardless of whether it is enacted as statutory law.
Two of the most basic tenets of Natural Law are:
That it is unlawful to harm others; and
That it is lawful to prevent deliberate harm from occurring or continuing if one has reasonable ability to do so.
The Golden Rule compels us to intervene when basic human rights violations take place. Natural Law provides people with the right to sanctuary, the right to contract voluntarily provided that we are trustworthy, and the right to obtain all knowledge necessary to inaugurate a truly viable future, amongst other rights. These rights are to be enjoyed by all men and women, and have never been – nor will ever be – the monopolized “property” of any group that isolates itself from the whole.
Natural Law as a restraint against tyranny – Judge Andrew P. Napolitano
William Barbe, Sott.net, Sat, 22 Nov 2014 20:25 UTC
Judge Andrew P. Napolitano, once a Fox News TV show host – and now an outspoken critic of the US government – delivered a short, intriguing, and, I believe, important speech at the Mises Institute in Costa Mesa, California, on November 8th, 2014.
He began by talking about the origins of Natural Laws, beginning with this quote from Sir Thomas More’s treason case under Henry VIII:
More was appealing to the jury of the Laws of Nature that restrain even the government. This was the classic Natural Law argument. More was not the originator of this argument; that was Saint Thomas Aquinas nearly 800 years ago. The English liberal philosopher John Locke picked up on this, as did Thomas Jefferson when he wrote the Declaration of Independence, and James Madison when he was a Scrivener for the US Constitution.
Thomas Jefferson’s version of More’s phrase – “We are endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights and among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”– articulates the view that our rights come from our humanity. Napolitano asks: What are these rights that come from humanity? And how can the government trample them? The concept of Natural Rights articulated by Aquinas is that there are areas of human behavior for which we do not need a government permission slip in order to make free choices.
Things like freedom to develop your own personality, to think as you wish, to say what you think, the right to worship or not to worship, to assemble in groups or to refuse to assemble, to petition the government for redress of your differences, and the right to defend yourself against tyrants. These are the quintessential ‘American rights’. The right to be left alone, for example, codified in the Fourth Amendment today is called the ‘right to privacy’.
UZA comment: For South Africa codified in the Bill of Rights; section 14 states:
14. Privacy – Everyone has the right to privacy, which includes the right not to have
their person or home searched;
their property searched;
their possessions seized; or
the privacy of their communications infringed.
Napolitano answers with the theory that we have surrendered some of our rights to the government so that the government will protect the rights that we have not surrendered. The idea is that the government derives its power from the consent of the governed.
He argues that no one is alive today that consented when the Constitution was enacted, therefore it is a fiction. The fiction is that we consented to surrender our rights where in reality our rights have been stolen from us through the use of force. He goes on to explain the theory that what was surrendered to the government was limited to 16 discrete, unique, separately stated and articulated powers in the Constitution. The 9th Amendment says that just because we’ve listed a bunch of rights in the first 8, there are many others and it would be impossible to list them all. Then the 10th Amendment explains that just because we’ve given some power to the Federal Government – we the states – that doesn’t mean we’ve given them all power.
That is the concept of limited government. The government must stop when it wants to touch our Natural Rights. An example Napolitano gives is the fingers on his hand: “They belong to me. They cannot be taken away by majority vote or by legislation or by the commander of the Executive. They can only be taken away if I give them up myself.
Such is the case if you rob a bank: you violate the Natural Rights of the depositors. You can then be prosecuted and have your freedom of movement taken away because you surrendered your Natural Rights by robbing a bank. So you can voluntarily surrender your own Natural Rights but you can’t surrender somebody else’s Natural Rights because they are owned by the individual. Not collectively, not by groups nor government, but by individuals. That was the theory of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the founding generation of the United States of America.
Regrettably it is no longer the theory today. Napolitano goes on to state that today the government, to which none of us has consented, claims it has the authority by majority vote to assault those liberties that are a part of our humanity. He argues that our Natural Rights are ours and not the government’s to be taken away. The Constitution was written to prevent the government from doing that except by due process. Due process means if I rob a bank and they want to take away my freedom, they have to give me a jury trial and the full panoply of protections that come with it. Natural Rights can be summarized in four words: the presumption of liberty.
This means we are self-directed. We make our own choices. It is not our obligation to prove we are unworthy of incarceration. It is the government’s profound, unique obligation to prove that we are worthy of incarceration and it must do so before a jury of our peers. Napolitano agrees that it is an imperfect system but that is the best system that we can come up with.
The presumption of liberty, Napolitano explains, is that the rights we did not surrender to the government are retained for ourselves. They cannot be taken away by popular vote or a majority in the legislature or a command by a governor or a president.
He raises the question:
Is there any legitimate activity government has in a free society?
The answer is:
Yes. To protect the Natural Rights of the people in that society.
Meaning, instead of assaulting my freedom, my life, my liberty, and my property, the government should be protecting it!
He concludes his speech with a dire message for young people:
“Some of you must be prepared to die in a government prison and some of you must be prepared to die in a government town square to the sound of government trumpets blaring. When the time comes, you will know what to do because freedom lies in everyone’s heart, but it must do more than just lie there.”
Thomas More, arguing as his own lawyer for alleged treason, for refusal to acknowledge Henry VIII as the head of the Roman Catholic Church of England. For that refusal he was beheaded.
When he was making his case to the jury, well of course the parliament or the king cannot make the round earth flat. Of course they cannot make a flat earth round. He is not only appealing to the common sense of his juries, he is appealing to their understanding of the natural law. Their understanding of the order of things, their understanding of the immutable laws that regulate and control even the king!
It is unfortunate that our present day kings, in their incredible arrogance, still seem to think that, they can make things in the world of ideas, behave in exactly the same way as things in the physical world.
Don’t you know that things in the world of ideas are non-scarce and non-rivalrous? They are what Ludwig von Mises calls “Free Goods”, because copies are potentially limitless. They “do not need to be economized.”
Thomas Aquinas is generally regarded as the West’s pre-eminent theorist of the natural law, critically inheriting the main traditions of natural law or quasi–natural law thinking in the ancient world (including the Platonic, and particularly Aristotelian and Stoic traditions) and bringing elements from these traditions into systematic relation in the framework of a metaphysics of creation and divine providence.
His theory sets the terms of debate for subsequent natural law theorizing. Thomas argues outright in the very first article of the first question of the Treatise on Law, that law (lex) essentially can be seen as an ordinance of reason directing activity toward some end, goal, or purpose, and the highest end or purpose we have as humans is our ultimate fulfillment, the full realization of our nature, or “happiness” as is commonly said in English. Hence all law is meant to sub-serve human happiness.
But law has by common acknowledgement and usage a social function as well: it directs the activity of some collectivity to a common goal, and it does this authoritatively. So the true purpose of law is to sub-serve the happiness of all in the community. But law does not merely recommend or suggest, it binds and commands. Lawmakers in our familiar experience are thus recognized authority figures within a social community who address themselves to the reason of the members of that community, commanding them to shape their actions in certain specified ways.
Because law has this essentially directive function, in order for an ordinance of reason from a recognized authoritative source to have the status of law, it must also be promulgated, or made public, so that it can perform its coordinating and directing work. Hence we have Thomas’s famous lapidary definition of law in the treatise: it is “an ordinance of reason for the common good, made by him who has care of the community, and promulgated.” 
Extracts from Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy; First published Sun Sep 2, 2001; substantive revision Tue Jul 10, 2012
John Locke (b. 1632, d. 1704) was a British philosopher, Oxford academic and medical researcher. Locke’s monumental An Essay Concerning Human Understanding (1689) is one of the first great defenses of empiricism and concerns itself with determining the limits of human understanding in respect to a wide spectrum of topics. It thus tells us in some detail what one can legitimately claim to know and what one cannot. Locke’s association with Anthony Ashley Cooper (later the First Earl of Shaftesbury) led him to become successively a government official charged with collecting information about trade and colonies, economic writer, opposition political activist, and finally a revolutionary whose cause ultimately triumphed in the Glorious Revolution of 1688. Among Locke’s political works he is most famous for The Second Treatise of Government in which he argues that sovereignty resides in the people and explains the nature of legitimate government in terms of natural rights and the social contract. He is also famous for calling for the separation of Church and State in his Letter Concerning Toleration. Much of Locke’s work is characterized by opposition to authoritarianism. This is apparent both on the level of the individual person and on the level of institutions such as government and church. For the individual, Locke wants each of us to use reason to search after truth rather than simply accept the opinion of authorities or be subject to superstition. He wants us to proportion assent to propositions to the evidence for them.
On the level of institutions it becomes important to distinguish the legitimate from the illegitimate functions of institutions and to make the corresponding distinction for the uses of force by these institutions. Locke believes that using reason to try to grasp the truth, and determine the legitimate functions of institutions will optimize human flourishing for the individual and society both in respect to its material and spiritual welfare. This in turn, amounts to following natural law and the fulfillment of the divine purpose for humanity.
Historical Background and Locke’s Life
John Locke (1632–1704) was one of the greatest philosophers in Europe at the end of the seventeenth century. Locke grew up and lived through one of the most extraordinary centuries of English political and intellectual history. It was a century in which conflicts between Crown and Parliament and the overlapping conflicts between Protestants, Anglicans and Catholics swirled into civil war in the 1640s. With the defeat and death of Charles I, there began a great experiment in governmental institutions including the abolishment of the monarchy, the House of Lords and the Anglican church, and the establishment of Oliver Cromwell’s Protectorate in the 1650s.
Locke’s Major Works on Education
Locke’s Some Thoughts Concerning Education and his Conduct of the Understanding form a nice bridge between An Essay Concerning Human Understanding and his political works. Nathan Tarcov and Ruth Grant write in the introduction to their edition of these works: “The idea of liberty, so crucial to all of Locke’s writings on politics and education, is traced in the Essay to reflection on the power of the mind over one’s own actions, especially the power to suspend actions in the pursuit of the satisfaction of one’s own desires until after a full consideration of their objects (II. xxi 47, 51–52). The Essay thus shows how the independence of mind pursued in the Conduct is possible.”(Grant and Tarcov (1996) xvi).
Some Thoughts Concerning Education was first published in 1693.
In advocating a kind of education that made people who think for themselves, Locke was preparing people to effectively make decisions in their own lives — to engage in individual self-government — and to participate in the government of their country. The Conduct reveals the connections Locke sees between reason, freedom and morality. Reason is required for good self-government because reason insofar as it is free from partiality, intolerance and passion and able to question authority leads to fair judgment and action. We thus have a responsibility to cultivate reason in order to avoid the moral failings of passion, partiality and so forth. (Grant and Tarcov (1996) xii) This is, in Tarcov’s phrase, Locke’s education for liberty.
I turn now to Locke’s political writings. It is worth noting that the entry on Locke’s Political Philosophy, focusing on five topics, the state of nature, natural law, property, consent and toleration, goes into these topics in more depth than is possible in a general account and provides much useful information on the debates about them.
The Two Treatises Of Government
The introduction of the work was written latter than the main text, and gave people the impression that the book was written in 1688 to justify the Glorious Revolution. We now know that the Two Treatises of Government were written during the Exclusion crisis and were probably intended to justify the general armed rising which the Country Party leaders were planning. It was a truly revolutionary work.
If we consider the state of nature before there was government, it is a state of political equality in which there is no natural superior or inferior. From this equality flows the obligation to mutual love and the duties that people owe one another, and the great maxims of justice and charity. Was there ever such a state? There has been considerable debate about this. Still, it is plain that both Hobbes and Locke would answer this question affirmatively.
4.2 Human Nature and God’s Purposes
If one takes survival as the end, then we may ask what are the means necessary to that end. On Locke’s account, these turn out to be life, liberty, health and property. Since the end is set by God, on Locke’s view we have a right to the means to that end. So we have rights to life, liberty, health and property. These are natural rights, that is they are rights that we have in a state of nature before the introduction of civil government, and all people have these rights equally.
If God’s purpose for me on earth is my survival and that of my species, and the means to that survival are my life, health, liberty and property — then clearly I don’t want anyone to violate my rights to these things. Equally, considering other people, who are my natural equals, I should conclude that I should not violate their rights to life, liberty, health and property. This is the law of nature. It is the Golden Rule, interpreted in terms of natural rights. Thus Locke writes: “The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges everyone: and reason which is that law, teaches all mankind who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty or possessions…” (II. 2. 6). Locke tells us that the law of nature is revealed by reason. Locke makes the point about the law that it commands what is best for us. If it did not, he says, the law would vanish for it would not be obeyed. It is in this sense, I think, that Locke means that reason reveals the law. If you reflect on what is best for yourself and others, given the goal of survival and our natural equality, you will come to this conclusion. (See the section on the law of nature in the entry on Locke’s Political Philosophy.)
Locke does not intend his account of the state of nature as a sort of utopia. Rather it serves as an analytical device that explains why it becomes necessary to introduce civil government and what the legitimate function of civil government is. Thus, as Locke conceives it, there are problems with life in the state of nature. The law of nature, like civil laws can be violated. There are no police, prosecutors or judges in the state of nature as these are all representatives of a government with full political power. The victims, then, must enforce the law of nature in the state of nature. In addition to our other rights in the state of nature, we have the rights to enforce the law and to judge on our own behalf. We may, Locke tells us, help one another. We may intervene in cases where our own interests are not directly under threat to help enforce the law of nature. Still, the person who is most likely to enforce the law under these circumstances is the person who has been wronged. The basic principle of justice is that the punishment should be proportionate to the crime. But when the victims are judging the seriousness of the crime, they are more likely to judge it of greater severity than might an impartial judge. As a result, there will be regular miscarriages of justice. This is perhaps the most important problem with the state of nature.
4.3 The Social Contract Theory
Just as natural rights and natural law theory had a florescence in the 17th and 18th century, so did the social contract theory.
So, while Locke might admit that some governments come about through force or violence, he would be destroying the most central and vital distinction, that between legitimate and illegitimate civil government, if he admitted that legitimate government can come about in this way. So, for Locke, legitimate government is instituted by the explicit consent of those governed. (See the section on consent, political obligation, and the ends of government in the entry on Locke’s political philosophy.) Those who make this agreement transfer to the government their right of executing the law of nature and judging their own case. These are the powers which they give to the central government, and this is what makes the justice system of governments a legitimate function of such governments.
Ruth Grant has persuasively argued that the establishment of government is in effect a two step process. Universal consent is necessary to form a political community. Consent to join a community once given is binding and cannot be withdrawn. This makes political communities stable. Grant writes: “Having established that the membership in a community entails the obligation to abide by the will of the community, the question remains: Who rules?” (Grant, 1987 p. 115). The answer to this question is determined by majority rule. The point is that universal consent is necessary to establish a political community, majority consent to answer the question who is to rule such a community. Universal consent and majority consent are thus different in kind, not just in degree.
Grant writes: Locke’s argument for the right of the majority is the theoretical ground for the distinction between duty to society and duty to government, the distinction that permits an argument for resistance without anarchy. When the designated government dissolves, men remain obligated to society acting through majority rule.
It is entirely possible for the majority to confer the rule of the community on a king and his heirs, or a group of oligarchs or on a democratic assembly. Thus, the social contract is not inextricably linked to democracy. Still, a government of any kind must perform the legitimate function of a civil government.
4.4 The Function Of Civil Government
Locke is now in a position to explain the function of a legitimate government and distinguish it from illegitimate government. The aim of such a legitimate government is to preserve, so far as possible, the rights to life, liberty, health and property of its citizens, and to prosecute and punish those of its citizens who violate the rights of others and to pursue the public good even where this may conflict with the rights of individuals. In doing this it provides something unavailable in the state of nature, an impartial judge to determine the severity of the crime, and to set a punishment proportionate to the crime. This is one of the main reasons why civil society is an improvement on the state of nature. An illegitimate government will fail to protect the rights to life, liberty, health and property of its subjects, and in the worst cases, such an illegitimate government will claim to be able to violate the rights of its subjects, that is it will claim to have despotic power over its subjects.
4.5 Rebellion and Regicide
At the end of the Second Treatise we learn about the nature of illegitimate civil governments and the conditions under which rebellion and regicide are legitimate and appropriate. As noted above, scholars now hold that the book was written during the Exclusion crisis, and may have been written to justify a general insurrection and the assassination of the king of England and his brother. The argument for legitimate revolution follows from making the distinction between legitimate and illegitimate civil government. A legitimate civil government seeks to preserve the life, health, liberty and property of its subjects, insofar as this is compatible with the public good. Because it does this it deserves obedience. An illegitimate civil government seeks to systematically violate the natural rights of its subjects. It seeks to make them illegitimate slaves. Because an illegitimate civil government does this, it puts itself in a state of nature and a state of war with its subjects. The magistrate or king of such a state violates the law of nature and so makes himself into a dangerous beast of prey who operates on the principle that might makes right, or that the strongest carries it. In such circumstances, rebellion is legitimate as is the killing of such a dangerous beast of prey. Thus Locke justifies rebellion and regicide (regarded by many during this period as the most heinous of crimes) under certain circumstances. Presumably this was the justification that was going to be offered for the killing of the King of England and his brother had the Rye House Plot succeeded.
Locke and Religious Toleration
Locke’s arguments for religious toleration connect nicely to his account of civil government. Locke defines life, liberty, health and property as our civil interests. These are the proper concern of a magistrate or civil government. The magistrate can use force and violence where this is necessary to preserve civil interests against attack. This is the central function of the state. One’s religious concerns with salvation, however, are not within the domain of civil interests, and so lie outside of the legitimate concern of the magistrate or the civil government. In effect, Locke adds an additional right to the natural rights of life, liberty, health and property — the right of freedom to choose one’s own road to salvation. (See the section on Toleration in the entry on Locke’s Political Philosophy.)
All who are loyal to the laws that govern logic and right reason acknowledge that it is impossible for man to create a universal moral law. At the same time, those who are wise also recognize it is equally impossible to maintain a free and self-governing society without a universal moral law: a moral law that applies to everyone equally – especially those who lead and rule over society. But a universal law requires a Law Giver, and if logic dictates that it cannot be a man, then that leaves no choice but that there must be a Creator. If there is not, then man would have to invent one, each by their own belief, unless society stays forever under the oppression of the law of the jungle: the law of ‘might-makes-right.’
Fortunately, there have been people who have discovered that a Universal Law of Morality does exist and that the human heart is born with a natural ability to recognize it. Job did it, as well as Cicero and the Apostle Paul and Locke after him. Jefferson even echoed that it is self-evident. Even as a child, we recognize when we have been wronged. It’s just that we lose this ability with time. As we grow more and more self-absorbed we lose touch with our conscience. But this does not mean that law ceases to exist: it does not. If it did; if there were no moral law; then the notion of any law would be an absurdity.
Native American Wisdom:
The customs and sacred laws of First Nations and Indigenous Peoples are closer to natural law than man-made written laws;
The Natural Laws are not Written on paper, they are Written in our Hearts.
You don’t know how an apple tastes until you taste it.
You don’t know what a fish tastes like until you eat it.
You don’t know how it is to be a woman unless you are one.
You don’t know what it means to have a baby until you have one.
So it is with the natural laws.
An example: the natural law of forgiveness says, if you hate someone, pray for the person to be blessed with happiness, joy and all the blessings of the Great Spirit.
You will not know about this law unless you do it.
The natural law says love others as you love yourself.
If you hate yourself or feel guilt in some area of yourself, you will tend to judge and condemn your neighbour.
You cannot give away what you don’t have.
You teach your children by your example, not by your words.
When law began to emerge into peoples’ conscience, deed, thought and word then followed the next order of law on earth. The most fundamental law of all human law has to do with survival which is a universal principle. It has to do with human interactions, of any kind, any relationships, buying, selling or trading or relating in any way. It is based upon treating or dealing with others the way that you would like to be treated or dealt with. This is the Law of Commerce.
The Law of Commerce has been in operation since man interacted with each other starting many thousands of years ago through the Sumerian/Babylonian era where it was codified and enforced. Ancient artefacts dating over 6,000 old reveal that the system was so complex it even included receipts, coined money, shopping lists, manifestos and a postal system with the medium being in baked clay.
The principles, maxims and precepts of Commerce Law are eternal, unchanging and unchangeable. They are expressed in the Bible, both the Old Testament and the New. The law of commerce has plagued people for more than 6000 years. This law of commerce, unchanged for thousands of years, forms the underlying foundation for all law and governments on earth.
It is the Law of Nations and everything that human civilization is built upon. This is why it is so powerful. When people operate at this level, by these precepts, nothing that is of inferior statute can overturn or change it or abrogate it or meddle with it. It remains the fundamental source of authority and power and functional reality.
Commerce in everyday life is the vehicle or glue that holds, or binds, the corporate body politic together. More specifically, commerce consists of a mode of interacting, doing business, or resolving disputes whereby all matters are executed under oath, certified on each patty’s commercial liability by sworn affidavit, or what is intended to possess the same effect, as true, correct, and complete, not misleading, the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
This affidavit is usually required for an application for a driver’s license, and SARS tax form, a voter’s registration, a direct Treasury Account, a Notary’s “Copy Certification” or certifying a document, and on nearly every single document that the system desires others to be bound or obligated. Such means of signing is an oath, or Commercial Affidavit, executed under penalty of perjury, “true, correct, and complete”. Whereas in a court setting testimony (oral) is stated in judicial terms by being sworn to be “the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help me God.”
In addition to asserting all matters under solemn oath of personal, commercial, financial, and legal liability for the validity of each and every statement, the participant must provide material evidence, i.e. ledger, or bookkeeping, providing the truth, validity, relevance, and verifiable of each and every particular assertion to sustain credibility. Commerce is antecedent to and more fundamental to society that courts or legal systems, and exists and functions without respect to courts or legal systems. Commercial Law, the non-statutorily variety as presented below in maxims 1 through 10, is the economic extension of Natural Law into man’s social world and is universal in nature. The foundation, invariant, necessary, and sufficient principles or “Maxims of Commerce” pertaining herein are:
As a derivative of Commercial law, being removed from natural law, and therefore inferior, is Common Law (common [L co together + munis service, gift, exchange] to exchange together). This emerged, basically, in England out of disputes over a portion of the earth in allodium (sovereign ownership of land) and was based on “common” sense. So, common law is the law of the earth. Common law gave rise to the jury system and many writs and processes which governments have absorbed and statutized and made into rules and regulation processes in courts.
Common Law procedures were based on the opportunity ‘to face your accuser or the injured party’ in front of witnesses to sort out the problem directly. This process was never intended to include ‘lawyers, attorneys or judges’ who are in fact ‘construing their own law’, as these ‘titles’ are all based upon the fiction of ‘representation’ which can never ‘be the real thing’.
After common law come governments, and their laws and legislative regulations of the sovereign states. The only ‘laws’” that the state can create is to ‘allow commerce to flow more efficiently WITHIN the state’. The only ‘law’ that government can create is to ‘allow commerce to flow more efficiently BETWEEN the states.’ It was never intended to regulate people – the sovereigns.
Below that is politics and the private copyrighted company policy of foreign corporations such as REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA (Pty) Ltd, … PROVINCE, THE MUNICIPALITYY OF…, THE CITY OF…, etc. The purpose of these “municipalities” [L munus service, gift, exchange + capere to take; to take service and exchange] is to “govern” fictitious entities such as JOHN DOE and SPAR – not to regulate people.
One of our problems is that when we engage with government, municipalities and other such elements, in all our dealings in the law when have been conditioned to interact on and in the law of the sea as opposed to the law of the land. We have never risen to the level where all people are equal and accountable as peers at natural law and natural justice. This is the remedy.
Claude Frédéric Bastiat 1801-1850 was a French classical liberal theorist, political economist and member of the French National Assembly. After the middle-class Revolution of 1830 he became politically active and was elected justice of the peace of Mugron in 1831. He was elected to the national legislative assembly soon after the French Revolution of 1848. Bastiat’s most famous work is The Law, originally published as a pamphlet in 1850. It defines a just system of laws and then demonstrates how such law facilitates a free society.
“The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else.” – Frederic Bastiat
He wrote that everyone has a right to protect “his person, his liberty, and his property”. The State should be only a “substitution of a common force for individual forces” to defend this right. “Justice” (defense of one’s life, liberty, property) has precise limits, but if government power extends further it becomes so limitless that it can grow endlessly. The resulting statism is “based on this triple hypothesis: the total inertness of mankind, the omnipotence of the law, and the infallibility of the legislator.” The public then becomes socially-engineered by the legislator and must bend to the legislators’ will “like the clay to the potter”:
Like others, Bastiat recognized that the greatest single threat to liberty is government. Notice the clarity he employs to help us identify and understand evil government acts such as legalized plunder. Bastiat says, “See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime.” With such an accurate description of legalized plunder, we cannot deny the conclusion that most government activities, including ours, are legalized plunder, or for the sake of modernity, legalized theft.
We support Bastiat in that the law becomes perverted when it punishes one’s right to self-defense (of his life, liberty, and property) in favor of another’s right to “legalized plunder,” which he defines as: “if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime.” Bastiat was thus against redistribution. The following are extracts which are as necessary and relevant today as then.
The Law: by Frederic Bastiat
What Is Law?
What, then, is law? It is the collective organization of the individual right to lawful defence.
Each of us has a natural right—from God—to defend his person, his liberty, and his property. These are the three basic requirements of life, and the preservation of any one of them is completely dependent upon the preservation of the other two.
For what are our faculties but the extension of our individuality?
And what is property but an extension of our faculties?
Much has been written on what law is and every judge and jury would rule differently. In the U.S. statistics show that in only 19% of all cases do the judge and jury agree on the ruling. The only remedy in law As Frank Collins from Ucadia Law says is knowledge of the true concepts of law.
Where Does Law Come From? — Everything You Need To Know and Were Afraid to Ask
by Anna von Reitz
Posted on April 7, 2016
The Western World has been dominated by Judaism and Christianity and Islam for the last two millenia. All three of these major world religions are rooted in one book— The Bible, and in particular, the Old Testament of the Bible. It should come as no surprise from the foregoing that all forms of law currently used by western societies including Sharia Law have their roots in the Old Testament, and the Bible remains the basis of all Law of the Land.
There is only one genuine remedy in law and it is knowledge – Knowledge of the truth of law – Knowledge of the true concepts of law. So, if you are not prepared to read or think or listen, then you are doomed to fail, one way or another. Yes, knowledge of law takes time. For some who are facing imminent threat of danger, there might be the excuse that they do not have the time – they need an answer now. This fear and imminent threat is often part of the sale pitch for material that ends up making issues worse for people, not better. Yet, the argument that knowledge of the law takes too much time is a bold faced lie and a complete falsity. I will prove it to you now. Go and have a look atArticle 7on theConstitutional Charter of the Globe Union. In 144 articles, phrases and single sentences, is more knowledge of law than you will find in a thousand pages of handouts of seminars. You could spend a hundred thousand dollars in courses and claimed remedies and not find more valuable knowledge.
Most people take the terms order, law, and government to be coextensive. Without government, there would be no law. Without law, there would be no social order. In fact, however, the three concepts are distinct.
Law may be defined as that institution or set of institutions in a given society that adjudicates conflicting claims and secures compliance in a formal, systematic, and orderly way. Law thus defined is one species of social order, but not the whole of it; there are also less formal mechanisms for maintaining social order. Indeed, the vast bulk of cooperation in society in fact depends on informal order rather than on law.
Varieties of Law
Law may be subdivided into voluntary and coercive law, depending on the means whereby compliance is secured. Voluntary law, as the name implies, relies solely on voluntary means, such as social pressure, boycotts, and the like, in order to secure compliance with the results of adjudication. Coercive law, on the other hand, relies at least in part on force and threats of force.
Coercive law in turn may be further subdivided into monocentric and polycentric coercive law. Under monocentric coercive law, there is a single institution that claims, and in large part achieves, a coercive monopoly on the use of force to adjudicate claims and secure compliance in a given territorial area. This institution is called a government, and everyone other than the government and its agents is forbidden to adjudicate by force. Under polycentric law, by contrast, no one agency claims or possesses such a monopoly.
An anarchist, then, is not someone who rejects order or law or even coercive law, but rather one who rejects government. The anarchist argues that informal order, voluntary law, and polycentric coercive law are sufficient to maintain social cooperation; the advocate of government argues that monocentric coercive law is needed in addition, and indeed typically maintains that the amount of social order that can be maintained through non-governmental sources alone is quite small.
Maxims are established principles in the law. These principles are from time forgotten which the people kept alive through common use which hold as much ground as any lawful court decision until shown to be wrong;
The numerous works of the various European jurists at various dates from the sixteenth to the nineteenth centuries are cited to-day as authoritative statements of the law with which they deal. A modem text-book has no such authority. The rules therein expressed are merely opinions which Counsel in addressing the Court may, if he pleases, incorporate in his argument, but which have no independent claim to attention, however eminent their author.
The works of the older writers, on the contrary, have a weight comparable to that of the decisions of the Courts, or of the limited number of ‘books of authority’ in English Law. They are authentic statements of the law itself, and, as such, hold their ground until shown to be wrong.
Of course the opinions of these writers are very often at variance amongst themselves or bear an archaic stamp. In such event the Courts will adopt the view which is supported by authority or most consonant with reason; or will decline to follow any, if all of the competing doctrines seem to be out of harmony with the conditions of modern life; or, again, will take a rule of the old law, and explain or modify it in the sense demanded by convenience.
[For a bibliography of Roman-Dutch law books see The Commercial Laws of the World, vol. xv—South Africa—pp. 14 ff.]
Baxter states: It follows that if one’s task is to research the provisions of a particular law applicable in South Africa, one should consult the codified legislation, case law and failing this, one can follow the originating sources, i.e. English Law or Roman-Dutch Law (also known as “the Old Authorities”) as the case may be. Any application of such a source must be lawful within the context of the Constitution and the spirit in which it was written.
We use maxims, ancient precedents and established principles which have as much authority as any court decision. Here are a few examples we use often:
Ignorance of the law does not excuse misconduct in anyone, least of all a sworn officer of the law;
The greatest enemies to peace are force and wrong;
Force and wrong are greatly contrary to peace;
Force is inimical to the laws;
Property and Land:
Things taken or captured by pirates and robbers do not change their ownership;
Land lying un-occupied is given to the first tenant;
When a man has the possession as well as the right of property, he is said to have jus duplicatum – a double right, forming a complete title;
Possession is a good title, where no better title appears;
Every man’s house is his castle;
Right and Wrong:
It is not lawful to do evil that good may come of it;
An error not resisted is approved;
Concealment of the truth is (equivalent to) a statement of what is false;
Witness and proof
An act done by me against my will is not my act;
Upon the one alleging, not upon him denying rests the burden of proof;
It is vain to prove that, which if proved, would not aid the matter in question;
Judges and Lawyers have a code of ethics by which they have solemnly affirmed to act:
CODE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY
With amendments to February 24, 1970
Source: Black’s Law 4th Edition, 1968; revised 6 – 1971; page XVII
The continued existence of a free and democratic society depends upon recognition of the concept that justice is based upon the rule of law grounded in respect for the dignity of the individual and his capacity through reason for enlightened self-government. Law so grounded makes justice possible, for only through such law does the dignity of the individual attain respect and protection. Without it, individual rights become subject to unrestrained power, respect for law is destroyed, and rational self-government is impossible.
Lawyers, as guardians of the law, play a vital role in the preservation of society. The fulfilment of this role requires an understanding by lawyers of their relationship with and function in our legal system. A consequent obligation of lawyers is to maintain the highest standards of ethical conduct.
In fulfilling his professional responsibilities, a lawyer necessarily assumes various roles that require the performance of many difficult tasks. Not every situation which he may encounter can be foreseen, but fundamental ethical principles are always present to guide him. Within the framework of these principles, a lawyer must with courage and foresight be able and ready to shape the body of the law to the ever-changing relationships of society.
“And I charged your judges at that time, saying Hear the causes between your brethren, and judge righteously between every man and his brother, and the stranger that is with him. Ye shall not respect persons in judgment; but ye shall hear the small as well as the great; ye shall not be afraid of the face of man; for the judgment is God’s; and the cause that is too hard for you, bring it unto me, and I wil hear it” — Deuteronomy, I, 16-17.
“Thou shalt not wrest judgment; thou shat not respect persons, neither take a gift; for a gift doth blind the eyes of the wise, and pervert the words of the righteous.” — Deuteronomy, XVI, 19.
“We will not make any justiciaries, constables, sheriffs or bailiffs, but from those who understand the law of the realm and are well disposed to observe it.” — Magna Charta, XLV.
“Judges ought to remember that their office is jus dicere not jus dare; to interpret law, and not to make law, or give law.”
“Judges ought to be more learned than witty; more reverend than plausible; and more advised than confident. Above all things, integrity is their portion and proper virtue.”
“Patience and gravity of hearing is an essential part of justice; and an over speaking judge is no well-tuned cymbal. It is no grace to a judge first to find that which he might have heard in due time from the Bar, or to show quickness of conceit in cutting off evidence or counsel too short; or to prevent information by questions though pertinent.”
“The place of justice is a hallowed place; and therefore not only the Bench, but the foot pare and precincts and purprise thereof ought to be preserved without scandal and corruption.” — Bacon’s “Essay Of Judicature.”
In addition to the Canons for Professional Conduct of Lawyers which it has formulated and adopted, the American Bar Association, mindful that the character and conduct of a judge should never be objects of indifference, and that declared ethical standards tend to become habits of life, deems it desirable to set forth its views respecting those principles which should govern the personal practice of members of the judiciary in the administration of their office. The Association accordingly adopts the following Canons, the spirit of which it suggests as a proper guide and reminder for judges, and as indicating what the people have a right to expect from them.
What separates Man from the beasts is the faculty of reason:
“Ratio est radius divini luminis. Reason is a ray of the divine light.” Henry Campbell Black, A Law Dictionary (West Publishing Co.: St. Paul, Minn., 1891) (hereinafter “Black’s 1st”), p. 995.
“Ratio est formalis causa consuetudinis. Reason is the formal cause of custom.” Id.
“Ratio est legis anima, mutata legis ratione mutatur et lex. Reason is the soul of law ; the reason of law being changed, the law is also changed.” Id.
“Personal liberty consists in the power of locomotion, of changing situation, of removing one’s person to whatever place one’s inclination may direct, without imprisonment or restraint unless by due course of law.” William Blackstone and John Innes Clark Hare, cited in John Bouvier, Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, Third Revision (Being the Eighth Edition), revised by Francis Rawle (West Publishing Co.: St. Paul, Minn., 1914) (hereinafter “Bouvier’s”), p. 1965 (s.v. “Liberty”).
“Due process of law is process according to the law of the land. . . .” Mr. Justice Matthews,delivering the opinion of the Court in Hurtado v. California, 110 U.S. 516, 533, 3 Sup. Ct. 111, 292, 28 L. Ed. 232 (1884).
“Under the Roman law, civil liberty was the affirmance of a general restraint, while in our law it is the negation of a general restraint.” Ordronaux’s Constitutional Legislation, quoted in Bouvier’s, p. 1965 (s.v. “Liberty”).
“Boni judicis est lites dirimere, ne lis ex lite oritur, et interest republicæ ut sint fines litium. It is the duty of a good judge to prevent litigations, that suit may not grow out of suit, and it concerns the welfare of a state that an end be put to litigation.” Id. at 2127.
Old authorities – Law dictionaries
A list of dictionaries to find original definitions and meanings of words in; we find that Black’s Law Dictionary 4th Edition is sufficient as it has lawful and legal definitions.
Other law dictionaries:
Webster’s 1828; Merriam-Webster Unabridged; Burn, A New Law Dictionary; Williams Law Dictionary; Bouvier Vol 1 A Law Dictionary;Bouvier Vol 2 A Law Dictionary; Holthouse A New Law Dictionary; Scott Military Dictionary; Abbott Vol 1 of 2; Abbott Vol 2 of 2; Rapalje Vol 1 A Dictionary of American and English Law; Rapalje Vol 2 A Dictionary of American and English Law; Bouvier Vol 1; Bouvier Vol 2; Stroud 2 Vol 1;Stroud 2 Vol 2; Stroud 2 Vol 3; Mozley Whiteley Law Dictionary; Stimson Vorhees A Concise Law Dictionary of Words Phrases; Thomson Dictionary of banking; Cahill The Cyclopedic Law Dictionary;
Most of which can be downloaded from:
What is the Rule of Law?
Derived from internationally accepted standards, the World Justice Project’s definition of the rule of law is a system in which the following four universal principles are upheld:
The government and its officials and agents as well as individuals and private entities are accountable under the law.
The laws are clear, publicized, stable, and just; are applied evenly; and protect fundamental rights, including the security of persons and property and certain core human rights.
The process by which the laws are enacted, administered, and enforced is accessible, fair, and efficient.
Justice is delivered timely by competent, ethical, and independent representatives and neutrals who are of sufficient number, have adequate resources, and reflect the makeup of the communities they serve.
These four universal principles are further developed in the following nine factors of theWJP Rule of Law Index, which measures how the rule of law is experienced by ordinary people in 99 countries around the globe.
No court and no judge can overturn or disregard or abrogate somebody’s Affidavit of Truth. The only one who has any capacity or right or responsibility or knowledge to rebut their Affidavit of Truth is the one who is adversely affected by it. It’s their job, their right, their responsibility to speak for themselves and to issue their own affidavit because no one can speak it for them. No one else can know what their truth is or has the free-will responsibility to state it. This is the plaintiff’s job.
When we do a counterclaim does that mean their claim is no longer active?
Yes, courts temporarily lose jurisdiction because in the first cause of action the question of jurisdiction is the issue. They must prove they have jurisdiction before they may proceed.
“Jurisdiction of the person and of the subject matter is not alone conclusive [and] the jurisdiction of the court to make or render the order or judgment” depends upon due observance of the constitutional rights of the accused. 25 Am.Jur., Habeas Corpus, sec. 27, p. 161. See also Palmer v. Ashe, [342 U.S. 134, 72 S.Ct. 191, 96 L.Ed. 154].
It’s all about subject-matter-jurisdiction; from the herein information, one will discover that Admiralty courts in fact have no jurisdiction over we, the people and can only concern themselves with commercial transactions between pieces of paper.
SUPREME COURT RULING – NO CORPORATE JURISDICTION OVER THE NATURAL MAN Supreme Court of the United States 1795,“Inasmuch as every government is an artificial person, an abstraction, and a creature of the mind only, a government can interface only with other artificial persons. The imaginary, having neither actuality nor substance, is foreclosed from creating and attaining parity with the tangible. The legal manifestation of this is that no government, as well as any law, agency, aspect, court, etc. can concern itself with anything other than corporate, artificial persons and the contracts between them.” S.C.R. 1795, (3 U.S. 54; 1 L.Ed. 57; 3 Dall. 54)
And, when one objects to the subject-matter-jurisdiction the court may not proceed.
“Jurisdiction, once challenged, is to be proven, not by the court, but by the party attempting to assert jurisdiction. The burden of proof of jurisdiction lies with the asserter. The court is only to rule on the sufficiency of the proof tendered.” See, McNutt v. General Motors Acceptance Corp, 298 U.S. 178 (1936). The origins of this doctrine of law may be found in MAXFIELD v. LEVY, 4 U.S. 330 (1797), 4 U.S. 330 (Dall.) 2 Dall. 381 2 U.S. 381 1 L.Ed. 424
In cases where a corporation or government takes a ‘citizen’ to court there is never a body of a people. There has to be a real accuser and a real injury:
“As a general principal, standing to invoke the judicial process requires an actual justiciable controversy as to which the complainant has a real interest in the ultimate adjudication because he or she has either suffered or is about to suffer an injury.” People v. Superior Court, 126 Cal.Rptr.2d 793.