"The great trouble with religion – any religion – is that a religionist, having accepted certain propositions by faith, cannot thereafter judge those propositions by evidence. One may bask at the warm fire of faith or choose to live in the bleak uncertainty of reason – but one cannot have both." ~ Robert Heinlein
The 'Rule of Law'
The precise legal definition of 'the rule of law' seems to have been 'misplaced' by our 'guardians of civilization' and lost in history. Current judges state: 'I am the law,' implying that they are the beginning and end of authority, residing in their eminently trustworthy and infallible persons. Enough information is now available to re-construct the 'rule of law' from the evidence.
Judges make the claim that they do what they do under authority of the 'rule of law.' This means that judges admit that 'the rule of law' actually exists and further admit they will not tell us what it is, by my lengthy and colossal failure to find a written and legally binding definition of the 'rule of law' anywhere.
Judges further claim that their role is to serve as 'guardians of civilization,' under the 'rule of law' which means the law must have some measurable purpose and effect besides fattening the bank accounts of legal 'professionals.'
The 'rule of law,' by its very words implies that it is intended to replace or at least control the power of rulers and all of the problems associated with arbitrary rulers and the conflict of competition for the position of 'ruler.' It also implies that it is not a mere replacement of rulers by another ruler class called 'Judge,' since this is just a name change and solves no problems. If it means that the law is supreme and Judges are mere interpreters, this is just a shifting of arbitrary rule to those who make the laws. Even if the lawmakers are elected representatives of the people, this still does not solve the problem of the majority enslaving the productive, oppressing minorities and collapsing civilization. Therefore, the rule of law cannot be a mere shifting of power to any one group, including the majority, since this solves none of mankind's organizational problems. The 'rule of law' must be something different.
Given the fact that those who wield force under color of law are by definition numerically inferior (but better armed with weapons we have provided to them) to those who must tolerate their actions, the 'rule of law,' to be useful must have some advantage able to achieve voluntary consent from a broad base of individuals who would otherwise organize to overthrow it like any other oppressive ruler throughout history.
To guard civilization, we must know what civilization actually is. We must know what is required for civilization to function. We must know what civilization should be guarded from. We need to know how success in protecting civilization can be measured.
Civilization is about the way mankind is organized. Since the organization of man is about individuals and groups interacting, we must consider the goals and motivations of the components in order to consider their organization. This is because there is no force in the universe able to enslave man by imposing an organization contrary to free choice. The definition of organization is: 'the set of capabilities and boundaries of the parts and the rules governing relationships between the parts.'
The greatest threat to civilization is from the competition of individuals and groups trying to achieve dominance over other individuals and groups. This results in total conflict and the collapse of social organization, placing collective survival at risk. Thus, the purpose of 'the rule of law' is to reduce conflict. We must understand what creates conflict in order to reduce it. The absence of conflict is peace and cooperation. Therefore civilization and the 'rule of law' is about the rules by which we live in peace and cooperate with each other by the minimization of conflict.
The 'rule of law' cannot leave any particular group in charge, since this group would ultimately enslave all others, as proven by historical experience. Since control of the law cannot be entrusted to some, it must be entrusted to all. Therefore, the 'rule of law' must be a simple philosophical statement of what is justice and not justice easily understood and agreed to by all men. This allows all to see that the law is fair and ensure that justice is done, to guard against injustice. If all have fairness and justice, no honest man will desire conflict. The 'rule of law' must also be the glue that ties all of mankind together in common interest, for mutual survival. Since this is the purpose of 'the rule of law,' it must also be a moral statement that mankind's overall survival is more important than some natural rights of inherently free men. Given that man's second highest goal is freedom, the 'rule of law' must limit freedom as little as possible, sufficient only to reduce conflict. If this were not the case, conflict would occur in pursuit of freedom.
The defining characteristic of any individual or group is the need to survive. To do so, goals must be achieved. In the seeking of any goal, there are only three possibilities. You can steal by force or fraud or you can trade value for value. There are no other possibilities. Since conflict is a consequence of forceful and fraudulent methods of goal seeking, these methods must be suppressed by law. These methods create conflict because they interfere with the survival of the victims, causing a defensive response. The only peaceful means of goal seeking is thus by mutually agreed trade.
To encourage mutually agreed trade, it must be un-coerced and people must be able to keep the fruits of their labors, or why bother? Trade reduces conflict further by virtue of the parties becoming interdependent and thus having an interest in mutual survival. Peaceful trade requires the law to treat all equally and property rights must be absolute.
The above conflict minimization and goal-seeking considerations results in a precise definition of 'the rule of law':
- 'all are treated equally by the law.' This means ALL, including king and judges
- 'absolute property rights'
Note that I use equality in the mathematical sense 'in all dimensions.' The meaning of the key words have been obscured by an assault on language, to destroy the precision required for truth.
The above 'rule of law' is what governments, judges and the legal profession have been hiding from us for centuries, while they and their cronies feed off of the conflict and human misery created by their illegal acts and divisive political philosophies. Mankind has long had this knowledge to create a better world for all and it is suppressed, for the profit of some. This suppression of truth is the greatest crime against humanity ever committed. It is an unthinkably evil crime. The unbelievable degree of evil and malice against mankind of this crime is the greatest defense of the perpetrators. These groups hypocritically claim to be acting in mankind's interest. Unchecked, these crimes will drive mankind to extinction by war, civilizations or ecological collapse. Do not expect the legal profession to judge itself guilty in this or any other matter.
The 'rule of law' is the highest law of mankind. All other laws are subservient and cannot contradict the 'rule of law.' All laws contradicting this including constitutional are an offense to mankind's collective survival and must be fought and destroyed. This most basic of laws is the highest intellectual achievement of mankind, the result of objective consideration of mankind's goals, nature, environment, history and survival by the greatest and most objective minds mankind has yet produced. The 'rule of law' is a profound truth which allows the most dangerous predator on the planet to live together in peace and harmony, cooperating for mutual self-interest and progress.
The above definition of the 'rule of law' is fully consistent with what governments, judges and the legal profession pretend to be guided (but not bound) by. The fact that government and judges do not consider themselves bound by the 'rule of law' allows them to remain in control, creating plausible 'necessity,' 'complexity' or 'technicalities' of why they and their cronies are special and above the law, free to suck the life out of their fellow men. This allows them to keep all of us fighting each other by refusing true equality and tricking us into blaming and killing each other. They make us slaves to their will by denying our property rights and threatening seizure. This allows them to promise our productivity to others who refuse to choose personal responsibility or accept the consequences of this decision, buying political support at our expense and placing incompetents in democratic control. The chaos of usurped democracy provides confusion and cover while our civilization is looted and destroyed, for the benefit of the unscrupulous.
For their grand finale, they are steering civilization to a worldwide conflagration of war that can never, ever end until the human race is extinct. This is for the simple reason that we have been duped into thinking our survival depends on someone else's exploitation. Our victims have responded by becoming what some call terrorist and I call freedom fighter. When justice is denied, conflict is the only survival option.
The absence of the 'rule of law' also prevents serious international cooperation in the critical areas of pollution, global warming, renewable energy, economics and poverty. The most crucial foundation of civilization has been stolen and removed. As a consequence, civilization is toppling.
The 'rule of law' is simple and unambiguous, making justice a simple matter with no special exemptions for anyone. Simply put, if any individual or group acts in a manner that creates conflict, then they are guilty and offend all of mankind. Any issue can easily be resolved by process of elimination. If it is not an honest, mutually agreed trade, then it is theft or fraud by definition. Since all are subject to this law, governments must also earn their keep and deal with each other and us in a non-conflictual manner. They will not do this willingly.
There is not a single problem of humanity that is not in some way related to the current and historical suppression of the 'rule of law.' The fact that the powers that be claim it as a pretext and the sophisticated methods by which they create and profit from conflict is sufficient proof that they understand the behavioral principles involved and their peril if the 'rule of law' ever returns.
Under the 'rule of law,' honest men are in charge, with a simple and precise definition of what they should be doing. Democracy will be prevented from discriminating on any basis, ending divide and conquer politics, forcing voters to consider common interest rather than advantage over others.
The 'rule of law' is brilliantly simple, just and well suited to all of mankind. The fact that western democracies once had prosperity, honesty, social unity and a work ethic argues that we once had the 'rule of law' to which all honest men agreed, to the detriment of criminals. The fact that these values are under concerted attack by 'Social Engineers,' creating conflict by pitting viewpoint against viewpoint is proof enough of who is responsible and that they know exactly what they are doing.
The resources we illegally spend on conflict and Third World predations, if redirected into education and honest trade, could easily solve world poverty and allow us to get on with the business of collective survival. It would free innovators to solve problems rather than defending their just rewards from predators with gavels.
The answer to the implied judicial question of 'I am big, I have all the power and can do whatever I please, you cannot prove me wrong and what can you do about it?' is, You have just been proven wrong. You are big and will thus fall very hard and take many with you. If you are not forced to fall, you will take all of us with you when your offenses against natural law which is also man's law collapses the civilization on which you prey.
The entire legal profession is profoundly wrong and an enemy of mankind. Who judges the judges? We do and I have. My role in this is done by publishing the proof of these crimes against humanity. Will we let civilization continue to absorb these predations and consequences until it collapses from the accumulated weight of our follies in tolerating this?