15. The "Rule of Law"
Law is claimed (by those who wield it and demand a monopoly on the use of force) to be mankind´s knowledge (truth) in the area of moral legitimacy of the exercise of force against individuals or groups. Since the law claims moral legitimacy, it must be moral by the values of mankind which are "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness", which really means the right to achieve personal survival. This is a very powerful truth, to which all honest men agree and upon which western civilization was once based.
The problem, as stated by the legal profession, is who gets "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" and who does not? The law claims that all conflict resolves to a conflict between rights and the law therefore must have the power to determine who has a higher claim on rights, by reasoning which has never been explained. Even if the law were to explain, any explanation of why people should be treated unequally by law cannot stand up to rational analysis. The law therefore demands our trust instead. If the law were to honestly express its opinion, the law would say "might is right". Fact, reason, current events and history say the truth is "might is wrong". The law, as currently wielded cannot bear the light of truth, meaning the law is dishonest and therefore is practiced by criminals who claim their acts are "necessary evil". They are half right. In addition, the power of law is actually the organized power of the people and not the property of those who wield it, for their own ends.
The precise legal definition of the "rule of law" has 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. It used to be "rule of law" and not "rule of they who have manipulated his way to positions of power to make the choices and smite all who disagree". 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 moral 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 and the conflict it spawns. 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 mans survival is achieved by adapting to environment which requires freedom to choose, 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 which is really the ability to choose, adapt and survive.
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 engage in honest, mutually agreed trade. There are no other possibilities. A person either agrees with the trade or not. Since defensive conflict is a consequence of forceful and fraudulent methods of achieving goals, 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? Honest trade reduces conflict further by virtue of the parties understanding each others wants and needs, becoming interdependent and thus having an interest in mutual survival. Peaceful trade requires the law to treat all equally and earned property rights must be absolute.
The above conflict minimization and goal-seeking considerations results in a precise definition of "the rule of law":
- "the suppression of forceful and fraudulent methods of goal seeking"
- "all are treated equally by the law". This means ALL, including king and judges
- "absolute earned property rights"
Note that I use equality in the mathematical sense "in all dimensions". The perceptual meaning of the key words have been obscured by an assault on language, to destroy the precision required for truth.
The meaning of property rights is restricted to refer to earned property, that which a person has secured or created by honest trade or labor, in other words, by expenditure of their own time and energy or life. A direct ownership linkage can be proven between any created or earned property and self ownership of the life that created it. Land and property which has been secured by methods other than honest trade is a special case, possibly involving crime in its acquisition (land cannot be created, only forcefully possessed) which will be discussed separately.
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. In their opinion, they define reality and are thus God, determining who lives or dies.
The "rule of law" is the highest law of mankind. Our ancestors fought for and achieved freedom to the point that consent was required to take anything from or do anything to anyone. This is history´s best suppressed secret. If we want to live, we must fight to restore freedom and true law. 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, co-operating for mutual self-interest and progress, secure in their own persons, property and affairs.
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 choice, 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 believing 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 by using force or fraud, 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 a criminal act by definition. Since all are subject to this law, governments must also earn their keep and deal with each other and us in a conflict free 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 lawful viewpoints against each other (who is more "equal"?) 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. These are crimes against humanity, the destruction of the proven values and law required for any civilization to function which once kept honest people in control of their own lives, affairs and property. Will we let civilization continue to absorb these predations and consequences until it collapses from the accumulated weight of our follies in tolerating this?
We still do not have the "rule of law" as defined above. Why not? What are the pros and cons, and for whom? A detailed analysis of current legal interpretation and abuse of "the rule of law" is in order
15.1 All are Treated Equally by the Law
This statement requires a rigorous analysis of what it means, what it is supposed to accomplish and how and why it is intentionally misinterpreted to the advantage of the legal profession. Start by breaking this statement into pieces.
The demise of the law´s ability to discriminate based on race was a reluctant admission that "ALL" includes all groups distinguished by race. Further social activism forced the law to include women in the definition of "ALL". Present activism is resulting in the inclusion of gays and lesbians and soon age.
In three centuries, social activism has not managed to expand the legal definition of "ALL" very far. Defiance of the people has managed to prohibit race, religion, sex, and now sexual orientation as a basis of discrimination. At this rate, it will take billions of years and incalculable legal fees to incrementally force the powers that be to concede the fact that "ALL" is inclusive of all individuals and groups on whatever basis anyone may choose to categorize. This is a very large list that will require more paper than the planet possesses to define and document. In particular, this means that government and judges are included. This is what "ALL" is defined as, "the complete set". This is man´s highest law, applying to "ALL", meaning, all individuals and groups, unconditionally, the complete set of mankind.
The cost to the powers that be of this admission is the ability to use divide and conquer tactics to usurp democracy into a free for all, with the winner and their cronies being able to discriminate against all other groups. It also eliminates social conflict between groups such as men and women who are treated differently and unfairly by the law, especially in divorce courts. It would end racial tension due to more subtle discrimination. It would end progressive taxation and force all to be taxed equally or not at all, reducing the size of government by making public demands for government services a choice with personal consequences. It would end the granting of monopolies to various friends of the state. It places all of mankind on an equal footing, able to peacefully compete on a level playing field, in mutual interdependence of trade with a focus on common interest, survival, innovation and general prosperity. In other words, exactly what "the rule of law" was intended to and used to do.
The point is made of what is at stake in the legal interpretation of the word "ALL" and how much opposition must be overcome and from whom. This is just one small example of the extreme danger of allowing the legal profession their own and different definitions of words (perceived reality) than the rest of humanity. This allows them and politicians to talk about crucial issues such as freedom in code while the public is under the mistaken impression that they are using our definitions, pursuing our common interest. This is a very large fraud of "the appearance of justice being done" and problems being managed. The reality is that social problems and conflict are being intentionally created, exacerbated and exploited for all that can be extracted by the misinterpretation of just one word. The law misinterprets all words. Since we control the law, we also control the definitions.
ARE TREATED EQUALLY:
This means any and all actions of the law must be applied equally to "ALL" as defined above, meaning any individual or group, including government and the law itself.
The law performs the actions of collecting complaints, collecting evidence, evaluation of fact, assignment of consequence to action and execution of consequence using organized force which is the property of the people, to be used for their benefit.
Once again, we have a troublesome word "EQUALLY", which, to anyone but a member of the legal profession is defined as "equivalent in all dimensions", a mathematical equation whose truth can be easily verified by comparing both sides. It means any action of the law must be applied exactly the same for all individuals and groups.
The legal profession, confronted with this troublesome word, reluctantly admits that some element of measurement is involved in determining "EQUALLY". What they do to work around the disadvantages (for the legal profession) of the word "EQUALLY" is to restrict the factors (falsely frame the argument) that they consider to be relevant or significant for measurement. For instance, this allows them to equalize both parties in terms of rights while ignoring inequality in the area of responsibility demanded under threat of force. This opened the legal door for Nazism, Fascism, Socialism, Communism, oppression of minorities, the welfare state and progressive taxation, all of which are created by legally categorizing citizens into groups and discriminating by unequal treatment under color of law. This fosters envy, creates social conflict between groups and destroys cooperation and thus prosperity.
Under "the rule of law", even a flat income tax rate is illegal by virtue of the fact it forces a different amount of tax payable by different income groups. This is discrimination based on income. If all have income, the only legal income tax is an equal lump sum, payable by all. If some do not have income, any income tax is discriminatory and illegal.
This makes it a matter of common interest to control the cost and power of government, which history proves is a very dangerous beast unless tightly controlled and closely watched. This is why, initially the US federal, state and municipal governments did not have income tax and relied exclusively on tariffs and service charges. It was a legal admission that government, like any other group, must use honest, mutually agreed trade to earn their keep as a method of survival. At this time, "the "rule of law" must have been in force, otherwise unrestrained US and other governments would have had income tax from the outset.
During the First World War a "temporary" income tax was imposed to pay for war. This tax has allowed the US government to afford a constant state of war as part of its goal seeking methods ever since. Income tax, under the "rule of law" is by definition an illegal and socially hostile act, unless "ALL" equally share the burden. The sinking of the Lusitania and the First World War was the beginning of the end of western civilization and freedom. Historians believe it was intentionally placed in harm´s way. This initiated a chain of events leading to this group achieving great power over mankind at the expense of civilization.
This ongoing illegal act (for "necessity") has spawned immense armies of accountants, lawyers, investigators and bureaucracy on both (predator/prey) sides, performing an extremely costly and conflictual function of no legal, social or economic value whatsoever. This destroys productivity and feeds a very dangerous group whose only focus is on their own survival and pretending to do something useful at the expense of all others.
Considering the critical function that "the law" performs, it is apparent that failure to equally consider the targets of actions of the law can result in some pretty horrendous failures as shown in the following areas and examples:
- Refusal to consider lawful complaints from groups such as blacks or non-citizens (who must then resort to defensive violence for relief = 9/11).
- Targeting evidence collection against particular groups (racial profiling)
- Evaluating different groups by different criteria (men and women at divorce)
- Different consequences for different groups for the same crime (direct theft versus theft under color of law by lawyers using discriminatory laws "legalizing" theft and fraud)
- "Posh" prisons for white collar criminals versus cesspools for others.
BY THE LAW:
This means that this part of the "rule of law" is an absolute constraint on the usage of the power of law applying to the law and only to the law. It most definitely does not constrain any other individual or group who are under no lawful obligation whatsoever to treat each other equally. Other provisions of the "rule of law" dictate what is lawful and not between individuals and groups which can be simply stated as "trade honestly" or else the organized power of your fellows has full moral authority to retaliate using the force of law.
What this means is that all individuals and groups except the law and its spawn (government) are free to discriminate against anyone, on any basis. Since the only lawful activity is honest, mutually agreed trade, this means that business, for instance, should it choose to discriminate against black people, acts contrary to its own interests by refusing customers and gives a competitive advantage to those businesses that do choose to deal with blacks. Should no business choose to deal with blacks, this is even better, since black business will be created, further aiding blacks in taking their rightful place as equal members of society, competing on a level playing field.
In practice, this means that there is no advantage at all for anyone except the law to abuse power by discriminating to create and profit from conflict between groups. In other words, racial or any other discrimination has no practical advantage for anyone except those who wield the law with its potential to profit by creating conflict. An action with no advantage will not be voluntarily undertaken by any but the insane.
15.2 Absolute Property Rights
Clearly, if individuals and groups are not able to accumulate and keep the results of their honest labors, there is no point in engaging in mutually agreed trade which is the only lawful, peaceful and moral means of goal seeking.
What this means is that any individual or group whom has lawfully accumulated property has done so by providing some value to society in the judgment of the individuals and groups that have voluntarily traded. In other words, the rewards are proportional to contribution to society, as judged by society. This means the people are in charge of who prospers and who does not on the basis of contribution to society. This insures a general trend to civilization´s progress as people compete to provide superior goods and services to their fellows at the highest quality and lowest cost possible.
The same arguments which prove, under the "rule of law" that the only legal income tax is an equal lump sum, payable by all, also applies to property tax, if everyone has property. If some do not have property, the payment of property tax is prohibited under the "rule of law", which would consider property tax as discrimination on the basis of property ownership.
What this means is that your honestly earned property is unconditionally yours and predatory government seizure of property for unpaid property tax is illegal, by the "rule of law". The only way you can lawfully lose your property is if you borrow against it and do not repay the debt. This also provides security for older people who can no longer earn income. Property tax has a particularly devastating effect on older people whom society should respect for their past contributions.
An analysis of Socialism´s basic argument that property owners and the rich are oppressors of the people, taking more than their fair share of social resources requiring them to be targeted as enemies of common interest are extremely flawed.
Under the "rule of law", by definition, property owners and the rich are the ones who contribute the most to society, in the judgment of society itself. Socialism´s argument is a blatant lie and antisocial in this case.
When the "rule of law" is absent, socialists have a valid point. It is only possible to prosper by being a member of the status quo, who, by suppressing the "rule of law", arrange economic matters for their benefit and resources are indeed unfairly shared, since the people do not make the choice of who prospers. Further, Socialist arguments are used by the status quo as a pretext to target the wealth and property of those who have honestly earned it, to further prosper and to deflect public attention away from themselves. This results in a general destruction of prosperity as productive people are forced to shift resources to defense or to outright leave, taking their investments and social prosperity with them.
By pretending to accept Socialist arguments, the law and government negate and totally insult themselves by simultaneously pretending that property owners and the rich are criminals, while also stating that government´s and the law´s purpose is to suppress criminals. How then, did the rich get so in the first place unless through failure of law? In other words, the law itself admits it is totally inept and unable to perform its function.
The appearance of incompetence is a standard tactic used by monopolies to increase resource extraction from their prey. Observe any government, in any country on the planet and it will appear inept and incompetent. This appearance of incompetence is useful as a pretext to explain why things cannot be changed. This incompetence is proven as illusionary by how quickly things to governments or the law´s advantage such as a new "innovative" tax spread like wildfire from country to country. It is a simple matter of the hand that takes being vastly larger and faster than the hand that gives.
15.3 Suppression of Forceful and Fraudulent Methods of Goal Seeking
The use of force or threat of force to seek goals is prohibited to all but the law, which is really the organized power of society, strictly limited by the "rule of law". None, including the law are allowed to engage in fraud. Use of force is by definition reactionary, in response to a criminal act. The only forceful threat that can legally be used is to threaten lawful consequences. Given absolute rights to life and property, it is lawful for a person or group to defensively use proportional force, including lethal for defense of their life or property.
A fraudulent method of goal seeking is the seeking of any goal without the fully informed consent of all parties. Theft is fraud by avoiding consent. Consent is a choice of intelligence, requiring full and truthful disclosure of the facts and consequences to all parties of engaging in trade. If undisclosed consequences of a trade happen after the fact, just cause exists to seek lawful reparations for fraud.
This portion of "the rule of law" simply states do not initiate force and "trade honestly" with your fellow men.
This law is a general statement, thus it is applicable to "ALL". The law and governments do not appear to have a problem in accurately and diligently enforcing this law when the criminals are other than themselves or their cronies. This provides some benefit and social value by suppressing all but the greatest criminals (themselves) while doing so. It contributes to "the appearance of justice being done", a necessary perception for rulers to maintain.
The problem here is strategic denial of the scope of applicability. Governments and the law itself violate this law by virtue of not earning their keep in honest, mutually agreed trade with their citizens. Both prefer hostile relationships and claim they are "necessary evil" due to mankind´s claimed inherently violent and antisocial nature. They claim this precludes freedom and requires great power to be wielded by wiser and more altruistic minds such as themselves. Neither fulfills their stated purpose of promoting and protecting civilization and both act contrary to this purpose. By process of elimination, they must achieve their goals by force and fraud, since there are no other possibilities.
It is lawful for the law to use force to enforce the law in response to a crime. It is unlawful for the law to use force or the threat of force for the benefit of the legal profession or any other goal except those consistent with the purpose and letter of the "rule of law". The "rule of law" is a firm moral statement that mankind´s overall survival requires suppression of conflict and maximum freedom for all. Outside of these areas, the law is morally neutral and, by definition, cannot legally be used to seek advantage over others. The law can only suppress acts that create conflict. It can only discriminate against criminals who create conflict. Any other action of the law is antisocial and illegal unless it applies equally to all. This allows us agree to a legal structure for government in the area of common interest.
By creating inter-group social conflict bordering on chaos, corrupt government and law have created the impression that criminals have gained the upper hand requiring that they possess powers prohibited by the rule of law. Thus far, this has been tolerated by terrified citizens, willing to trade the loss of freedom claimed to be required for the promise of security. This security is promised by the same groups whose failure to fulfill their purpose results in lack of security. This is also why criminals receive light sentences and early parole, just to be set loose in society to re-offend again. This has the advantage of reducing the cost and risk of criminal activity for criminals, creating more criminals. Incarceration costs are reduced. More criminal acts, more often results in more work and income for the legal profession and the perception that more resources must be directed to the law and order industries. As a consequence, terrified citizens demand that governments and law have more power to deal with this social disorder that they themselves have created and will never solve for the simple reason that their survival depends on conflict and disorder.
15.4 Other Possibilities Conceded
Given the quality of the intellects and the historical information available to the founding fathers of the United States and the undeniable conformity of the Constitution of the United States to the basic principles and goals of the "rule of law", it is extremely unlikely that the founding fathers were not aware of this final solution to mankind´s woes.
Practical considerations in the area of required political support from vested interests may have prevented the "rule of law" from being explicitly codified in law and instead only highly implied.
At the time, slavery was still a fact in the US, to the point that the economies of the southern states were totally dependent on slavery. The "ALL" provisions of the "rule of law" is not something that southern elites would have voluntarily accepted, even though at the time black people were not legally defined as people but as property. It must have been clear to the elites that this property definition would not stand the test of time and an end to slavery was a consequence of allowing the "rule of law" as envisioned by the founding fathers to be legally codified. Slave owners would not admit their own personal experience that black people are just as human as any other race.
In my opinion, the founding fathers did the best they could, given the practical consideration of achieving consensus of elites for implementation of the US Constitution and left the "rule of law" highly implied by lesser law with adequate hints to deal with the troublesome and morally repugnant issue of slavery. The law and Constitution of the US therefore became "white mans law". Slaves received their freedom at the end of the civil war. Most historians and I do not consider the US civil war to have been about slavery. It was mainly about the incursion of US federal power into areas that the southern states considered to be their exclusive domain. The promise of freedom for slaves was just a ploy to disrupt the south by slave rebellion and to recruit slaves to fight for the north. The promise of "40 acres and a mule" was made to slaves who fought for the north, but never kept.
The particular issue of slavery has been dealt with by denying law the power to discriminate based on race.
Another possibility is religious manipulation and influence. It is entirely in character that influential religious interests were totally opposed (for obvious reasons) to having the highest law of man legally codified in completely secular terms. This would outmaneuver the power of God himself, who, per their stated beliefs, is the highest moral authority and, by odd coincidence, the claim to value and survival pretext of clergy.
Instead, the United States was established "by authority of God". To say this is becoming problematic is a gross understatement. The US was claimed to be established under the authority of a power that is under concerted attack and largely becoming irrelevant in the affairs of man. This completely usurps the moral authority of the US constitution in proportion to the influence of God´s authority in the affairs of man. The entire legal structure of the US is becoming unraveled as a consequence. The American people should have remained good Christians, for their own best interest. This situation is intellectually elegant. When the US implodes by abandonment of their principles, religious interests will claim it is because Americans strayed from the will of God and were smited as a consequence, just as the Sodomites. Given the similarities between religious teachings in the area of morality and natural law, there is a large element of truth in this.
A remote possibility is that I am the first human being with enough intelligence, access to information and sheer determination to answer to the central question of mankind´s existence which is, how to survive in peace, security and happiness with my fellows who have a fatal tendency to consider me as their prey, leading to all sorts of pointless conflict. I consider this to be an extremely unlikely prospect, thus my conclusion is that the "rule of law" has been and is intentionally being suppressed by conflict mongers in the legal and affiliated professions.
15.5 The Goals and Environment of the Legal Profession
To understand the legal mind, you must always remember that this is a profession and group in a monopoly position, performing the functions of creating, interpreting and profiting from law with the subject matter being conflict between individuals and groups. This, like any other group is seeking dominance over their fellows as a survival strategy, with absolutely no requirement for real consideration of their fellow man. This group profits from conflict which it also has the power to create using laws which deny equality. This allows them to pit lawful viewpoint against lawful viewpoint, pretending to consider who is more equal.
Optimal power and wealth extraction for the legal profession is therefore achieved in an environment with as much confusion, controversy and conflict as possible. This is limited only by the requirement not to collapse the underlying economy on which they prey. The negative effect of the legal profession on economic productivity is by their consumption of vast resources, interference with cooperation, legislating themselves as a required part of any agreement or transaction, creating conflict and generally wasting everyone´s time and energy making mountains out of molehills.
It is a matter of conflicting goals. Civilization depends on minimal conflict and harmony, while the legal profession, which claims to guard civilization by mitigating conflict and maintaining social order has seized the power to do whatever it wants. They are "the experts" and we must obey under penalty of force and the only thing that controls them is the requirement to appear to not be violating the law. If they do not maintain this appearance, by the natural rules of social force, based on numerical superiority of their prey, they will be generally defied and overthrown, like any other corrupt ruler throughout history. The legal profession is well aware of this. They do not want you to know this. They do not want you to discover common interest with your fellow man. They want your neighbor or anyone different from you to be your enemy and for you to use democracy and the law to seek advantage over them. Taking matters into your own hands and using violence is also acceptable, since the legal profession will profit by dealing with you as a criminal, rather than a litigant. Heads they win, tails we lose. This is why monopolies are so dangerous.
The requirement to appear to be in compliance the law is because the courts are being observed and judged by the population at large, their masters who must not ever achieve consensus that the law is being violated. Not only must justice be done, but the perception of justice must be seen, as a judge would put it.
In addition, the perception of personal cost by large segments of society must not be observed or be directly attributable to predations of the legal profession. These are the same considerations of any ruler which means that the average person with few resources should be left alone and the prey should be limited to those with income and/or property both to acquire resources for survival of the legal profession and to limit potential rivals from accumulating enough power to be a threat. Thus, the law should be, for the most part invisible and the true costs must be hidden from the general population.
In cases where the prize or target group is large, the prey should be made to appear as an enemy of the people and isolated from all social sympathy and general support. The ideal case is to completely demonize the prey, so justice may be seen to be done in the name of common interest. Demonize, socially isolate, move in for the kill, feed from the carcass is the legal profession´s basic method of predation. In our lifetimes, we have seen this happen to the rich, business, landlords, employers and men, moving down a prioritized list of targets based on wealth and income. The legal profession is running out of targets and seems to have decided war and international predation is the next step.
Since the law has absolutely no intention of providing justice and is concerned with maximal resource extraction from litigants and the population at large, some way must be found to mask or at least rationalize this fact. Unnecessary complexity and ritual solves the problem of explaining the cost to litigants and making legal rationalizations too difficult to understand by the average person who then foolishly concludes that such matters are beyond his comprehension and best left to "the experts" who, by definition, know best.
The "rule of law" once did and will again destroy the manipulated monopoly of the legal "profession" and they know it. This is the purpose of the "rule of law". The power to enslave cannot be trusted to any individual or group. History proves all who seize this power are ultimately destroyed and take their civilization down with them. This is an inevitable consequence of natural law constraining mans survival choices, as previously proven.
15.6 Process Versus Goal Driven Law
To allow the benefit of a doubt, what may not be clear to judges is that their perceptions and choices are also controlled by environmental manipulation, resulting in inability and fear to exercise the necessary power that was once morally and lawfully theirs. In fact, the power to deal with criminal acts belongs to all honest people, should they have the courage to wield it and judges are mere employees, proxy decision makers, acting in common interest. This means that judges have no personal power or discretion of their own. Judges have been mis-educated and subverted to believe that justice is process (go through the motions and hope for the best) rather than goal (measurable results) driven. Courts have unwisely accepted the flawed paradigm of precedent law which restricts judicial choices to those that have been made in the past (correct or not), endlessly doomed to repeating past bad choices, preventing the law from adapting and thus surviving by performing a useful social function. The main purpose that precedent law appears to serve is to insure that judicial bribes and corrupt decisions stand for all time or until the tolerance of the people is exceeded. This judicial behavior meets the definition of insanity by one of the greatest intellects of all time Albert Einstein, Insanity: "doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." A more realistic (cynical) assessment it that the law is doing exactly what is desired by our hidden masters with unstated objectives.
The process and rules of courts are set by unaccountable others, another method of control. Judicial intellectual freedom and ability to know and act according to truth is restricted by stating that some facts are inadmissible, resulting in incorrect understanding of situations and flawed reasoning. Judges have been mis-educated and subverted into believing that there is such a thing as absolute truth, applying to all people in all environments and that said "truth" can be imposed on the unwilling, a destruction of diversity, choice and ability to survive. The truth is, that truth depends on fully considering all environmental conditions (facts) and cannot exist independently of all environmental facts. Truth-seeking, a basic necessity to accurately judging anything, cannot function in the environment that courts have been subverted into accepting. The law has been neutralized and made impotent, worse than irrelevant due to the social havoc and destruction of cooperation (basis of civilization) it wreaks. It will take some determined judicial rebellion and personal risk for honest judges to seize their rightful powers and re-assert the "rule of law". The longer they wait, the harder it will be. Failure to act will result, at a minimum, in the entire legal profession and their cronies facing the 21st century equivalent of the guillotine in the social/economic collapse of civilization that is an inevitable consequence of the law facilitating "rule by divide and conquer", destruction of common interest and ability of people to choose, adapt and survive. Another possible fate is that we all will be consumed in the thermonuclear fires of the coming resource wars. I am sure these fact and historical knowledge based predictions will be dismissed as wild speculation on my part. History is very clear on what happens to civilization when the apparatus of state and law is wielded by criminals. Courts can either watch civilizations collapse on the lying, subverted, blame-shifting, corporate/government controlled media or do something to prevent it, such as restoring their moral authority and relevance by acknowledging and re-asserting the "rule of law".
There is an infinity of contradictory law (too much for any mere mortal to comprehend, let alone obey) and precedent that can be subjectively and contextually misinterpreted as a pretext to destroy anyone, including judges who choose freedom, peace and reason over submission to arbitrary whims and slavery. Courts and the legal profession worldwide have truly lived up to your reputation as "conservators of ancient barbarisms" and appear determined to continue to do so, despite the fact that the inevitable consequence is destruction of yourselves and all possibility of civilizations survival. Hopefully, sane minds in the judiciary are beginning to realize, by their own experience dealing with the daily disintegration of our civilization´s moral, legal basis and inevitable world events (logical consequences, such as 9/11 and the march to the "final" world war) that the unresolved (intentionally, by suppressing the "rule of law") matters destroying all possibility of civilized, peaceful coexistence of which I speak are survival threatening to ALL, including courts and other foolish "stakeholders" who seek short term profit by the enslavement of their fellows and resulting demise of civilization.
Another problem is that it is not apparent how judges actually become so. They are certainly not chosen by the people or any objective standard such as excellence measured by their performance in complying with the "rule of law". In fact, it appears that judges become so as a reward for political skullduggery and are promoted to become political hacks, enforcers of the party line.
Any reader who has had the misfortune of being employed (enslaved) by government or any large enterprise will attest that they had no choice but to follow process and, when the desired results were not achieved, the answer was always a new and better process which also failed. Under no conditions can people be allowed to use their own intelligence, make their own choices in pursuit of specified goals. In fact, in the case of government, the stated goals are mere pretexts in pursuit of very different goals, always to the detriment of citizens.