Rule of Law is a Crime Against Humanity

I’ve just published a knol on the rule of law being a crime against humanity. See it here.

The Rule of Law makes NO Logical Sense

Obviously some laws have good intent and others are questionable at best but the real issue with the rule-of-law is that it is a convoluted and ass-backwards system that does NOT actually do what we need it to do. Please note that I’m talking here about how the rule of law pertains to governing human actions and not how business is administered. IE. Think about the criminal code and/or the traffic laws and forget about rules of incorporation and such like.

The very base premise of the rule-of-law is that everyone is presumed to be a slave to or a subject of a nebulous proto-diety named law. And the rule of law presumes that every word issued in the name of it’s mouth (Law itself has no mouth because it has no physical entity) must be followed to the letter or the law’s wielders may punish people like children or slaves. Rousseau said something like ‘man is born free but everywhere he is in chains’.

But this premise has no actual legitimacy, right or even any good logic. You as an individual have no right to tell me what I can or cannot do and punish me if I do or don’t. A nation is comprised of x million people who each do not have the right to inflict law on me either. A nation ONLY has the rights that it’s citizens can grant it but like the deed to the Brooklyn Bridge, citizens do not hold my slave contract to assign over to the government. Yet the law acts as if it has some right–it does NOT. The rule-of-law is tyranny pure and simple! It is the use of power without the right. Regardless of how benevolent the tyranny tries to be (or claims to be), law will always be tyranny. (This is one of the two major reasons why the rule of law cannot be fixed: it will have to be replaced.)

The Rule of Law is Convoluted

The theoretical mechanics of how the rule of law takes the harm from individuals and assigns it on itself is the other big and unsolvable problem with the rule-of-law. I’ll use a murder for an example. According to law, the killer is NOT on trial for having killed the victim. The court is ONLY concerned with how the law itself was hurt when the killer killed. The dead victim is simply physical evidence of how the law against murder was damaged by the act.

Basically what the rule of law does is to presume that every incident of law breaking is a political statement of defiance against the authority and that whatever was actually done was not the real issue. This begs the question: How much of the ambient crime under the rule of law is partially or completely, consciously or subconsciously, inspired by a desire to protest against enslavement–I strongly suspect this accounts for or factors into most crime. So whereas you are told and taught that the rule of law ‘protects’ you, in logical fact it is the reverse. Law only really seeks to preserve it’s power to be a tyrant and the rule of law endangers you by painting a crime target on you. Any malcontent (like a sociopath or a terrorist or anyone with a grudge against the tax department) can make a valid anti-government or anti-law political statement simply by harming you in a manner that is prohibited by law.

Rule of Law is S-T-U-P-I-D

The rule of law is a patently STUPID way of handling public justice and protection because it provides neither: it doesn’t even attempt to do either.

Intelligent Alternate to Rule of Law

My alternate method is to base society’s authority to take action against wrong doers on human rights. You as an individual do NOT have the right to tell me what I can or cannot do and punish me–BUT–you DO have the right of self protection and that CAN be assigned to the authority by you and other citizens. We’ll use murder again as an example. A killer has killed. The court is NOT seeking to punish him for what he has done. Instead, the court is determining how a right to life was violated and how the security of the community is threatened by the killer’s murderous nature. And if ‘guilty’ the murderer will be restrained in jail–where he is still technically free and unpunished, but where he is unable to inflict murder on anyone else. The end effect is nearly identical to law. (Or rather it functions nearly the same as the way you are propagandized into thinking the law works–when I’ve just shown that in truth, the rule of law doesn’t operate like that at all.)

I don’t know what to name my new justice system. The rule-of-rights doesn’t quite cut it because there is no actual ‘rule’ by anyone or anything. Basically, almost everything in the justice/police/prison systems could generally remain as they function currently. Even the “laws” could remain intact and actionable but they could no longer act as ‘laws’. Instead they would be protections of valid human rights. Obviously, murders, rapes, assaults, robberies, red-light running, and speeding are violations of people’s right not to be murdered, robbed, assaulted, raped, t-boned at an intersection, or hit by a speeder.

Under this system a day in court would involve what one person did to another, what ramifications this entails for other people, and what remediation best suits the situation. Unlike the rule of law, it is NOT about how a person made an anti-government statement by defying an edict and how the judicial system will now prove it’s awesome power in retaliation for some hypothetical damage to a piece of government property that does not actually exist in the physical universe.

As people, we must wake up to the fact that the rule of law is a BAD system.  We can replace the horrible rule of law concepts without damaging the fabric of society.  In fact, the rule of law is a crime against humanity that is causing most of our worst societal ills.  Replacing the rule of law with a sane system would usher in a golden age of real freedom and reduced crime.  The rule of law MUST go away!