Russell Twyce

The rule of law has completely ingrained itself into our culture and it has surrounded itself with untrue notions.  [private_Chevron]To wit:  1. Law suggests that it protects people, when it really only protects itself. 2. That the opposite of law is ‘chaos’ ‘anarchy’ ‘lawlessness’, when the true opposite of law is a justice/protection system that works perfectly well without law’s many drawbacks.  Law is so ingrained into people’s minds that they actually become irrationally angry, as if by post-hypnotic suggestion, when I even try to discuss the perfectly viable alternative.  3. That law is freedom when it most certainly ISN’T: the rule of law is slavery to law – and that is unnecessary.  4. That the government has the ‘right’ to enact laws: the government has the ‘power’ to enact and inflict laws  BUT it does NOT and has NEVER had the right to.

Law operates on the untrue premise that a person committing a wrong against another person has instead hurt the law itself.  That is incorrect and actually illogical.  The law does not exist in the physical universe and the action did not affect it in any way.  A person or people was/were harmed or threatened and justice system of truth would deal directly with that issue.

Let’s look at a particular law as a way of showing how non-law could function better than law, and on true and logical principles.  (It might help your understanding if you attempt to think of law exactly as it is stated and as it functions, instead of with the fuzzy misinterpretations that surround it).

A person is seen speeding.  According to the law, the car’s bumper broke an invisible law and although there are no shards of broken law to sweep up into evidence, the officer decides that the driver has harmed the government’s authority to keep him as an obedient slave.  And a ticket is issued.

A person is seen speeding.  According to non-law order-keeping, the officer feels that the action is a hazard to the pedestrians and other drivers, whom he is tasked with protecting.  And a ticket is issued.

The obvious difference is that the officers authority to act in the first instance, is on his power to protect the government’s mighty authority.  In the second instance the police officer’s mandate is to protect people and their right to safety/security.  Which one is actually and intrinsically true?

Law does NOT do what you think it does.   Law does not and never has protected you.  Law only protects itself and a government’s authority to push you around: that causes further problems that I can discuss in another post.  There IS a better way to deal with crime and it should be explored rationally.[/private_Chevron]