16. Values Enforced by True Law
In essence, the "rule of law" is naturally learned knowledge from the school of hard knocks. If we forget it or allow it to be taken from us, we must re-learn the same lessons, this time with species threatening weapons, as the current state of mankind indicates.
All evidence indicates that this knowledge is being suppressed and strategically denied by those who profit by conflict and seek to enslave their fellows. The "rule of law" is the solution to the problem of human conflict, of intelligences competing for dominance in an environment of limited resources. It is simple knowledge that allows the most dangerous predator in the known universe to live together in mutual respect and peace.
A very early concession to reality was the fact that a "final arbiter" of disputes, backed by force had to be chosen for mutual protection from conflict destroying all cooperation and social organization. This concession allowed social co-operation only during the tenure of the "final arbiter of disputes" at the cost of added conflict over the coveted "arbiter of disputes" position plus the corruption and favoritism that was an inevitable consequence of this position.
The ultimate conclusion is that the necessary and absolute power of the "final arbiter of disputes" position is too great and prone to abuse to be entrusted to any individual or group who inevitably use it for their own advantage and ultimately enslave all others. It is necessary to remove the ability to make and profit by arbitrary decisions by the "arbiter of disputes" and replace it by simple justice that all honest persons can agree with and easily see done. In other words, this power over mankind cannot be entrusted to any individual or group and must therefore be entrusted to all of mankind. Honest men are the "arbiter of disputes", observing and making sure that the "rule of law" is honored and administered by proxy decision-makers called judges who are mere civil servants, reconcilers of action to consequence, tasked with a simple and well defined job. The necessary response of all honest men to corrupt judges is obvious.
Conflict has also taught man that any who aspire to rule are by definition in the minority and the people are in charge. Unfettered democracy taught man that this led to oppression of minorities and the productive leading to social/economic collapse proving that democracy alone is inadequate. The question became, how to keep the people in charge and still have justice and social order? The answer was a simple decision process (knowledge) for limiting the power of government and law by resolving disputes in a way that people could unambiguously know what is right and wrong and how to conduct their affairs in harmony with their fellows. Previous analysis of the causes of conflict, the nature and goals of man results in man´s highest law and intellectual accomplishment, "the rule of law", repeated below:
- "thesuppression of forceful and fraudulent methods of goal seeking"
- "absolute property rights"
- "all are treated equally by the law". This means ALL, including king and judges
This is a philosophical statement, the highest truth of mankind´s legitimate behavior consistent with what is necessary for mankind´s survival, the elimination of competition using methods which create conflict. As the highest law, all lesser laws are mere contextual clarifications and cannot contradict or detract from this law. This means that the "rule of law" is a generalization or summary of all other legitimate laws which are mere special cases of this, the highest and most necessary of laws. The law is SIMPLE, ABSOLUTE and applies to ALL. It is JUSTICE
The "rule of law" has the moral authority of being truly necessary for mankind´s collective survival. Any who act contrary to this law create conflict that affects the survival of all mankind. This gives any man the moral right to act in collective self-defense to stop and punish unlawful behavior with a proportional response, using lethal force if necessary. This is the law. Obey it or else, whoever you are, with no exceptions.
"The rule of law" is also a value statement of man´s highest morality. It states that life and mankind´s collective survival is of greater importance than that of unfettered natural freedom. It states that freedom for all is to be minimally limited by prohibition of all methods of goal seeking that create conflict between individuals and groups. It states that the law must treat all people and groups equally, with no discrimination or special status for some to be allowed on any basis. It encourages man to engage in honest trade with his fellows as the only lawful method of goal seeking. It grants absolute earned property rights, to encourage peaceful trade. It states the highest values of mankind are life, and as much freedom as is consistent with social harmony and peace.
16.1 On Moral Authority
The rule of law is a firm moral statement of honest men that the survival of all men demands enforcement of the "rule of law" and civilized values. The "rule of law" states that the best ideas as judged by free men always win and those creating and adhering to the best ideas are free to keep the fruits of their labors, independent of any contrary opinion. The only lawful choice is to either personally emulate or reject these choices. To claim "it is not fair" and foster envy and conflict in society by attempting to insulate people from the consequences of poor choice is contrary to the highest law of man. This is the mechanism of unfettered evolution of mankind in the area of intelligence, leading to a general improvement for all, since it is human nature to emulate choices which lead to improvement in the area of survival and prosperity. This is an open-ended commitment, by all men, for all time.
The "rule of law" gives the moral and legal authority to use social force both in literal enforcement and in areas provably related to mankind´s long term survival such as education and pollution control. Survival for all, including unborn generations is mankind´s highest value.
As a consequence, we must accept the consequences of lawful personal choice and do nothing apart from education to help people to avoid the consequences of their own choices. For instance, if people refuse to earn their own keep, they can starve or beg for handouts. Alternatively, they can choose to engage in criminal activity, at which time they will be caught and rehabilitated by the means outlined in the "Crime and Punishment" section. This is a short term problem which can be solved by proper education of our youth in the area of human nature, history, survival and consequences of choice in the long term.
16.2 Human Rights
The "rule of law" states that all men can do whatever they choose, as long as they do not create conflict.
Any enumerated list of lawful rights of man is by definition a limit placed on total freedom and will create a defensive response from any who wish to exercise rights that are not included in the list, requiring suppression by force. Should any group attempt to limit this rightful freedom, they are the conflict creators and criminals. This limit will have the same effect as the definition of "ALL" being restricted in the "rule of law", allowing discrimination against some groups. Even if all persons mutually agree to a list of rights and provide power for enforcement, this is legally valid only for the people who agreed. It most definitely is not valid for men who are born subsequently or those who withdraw their consent.
The meaning of this is clear. Any attempt to limit the rights of man beyond prohibiting forceful or fraudulent methods of goal seeking, by any group is a hostile act, against all men, contrary to the rule of law. This means that any constitution or bill of rights or any other law that presumes to limit freedom and bind future generations without their explicit consent is illegal and has the potential to create conflict.
In particular, this means we must be tolerant of those who choose to exercise unpopular but rightful freedoms such as being gay, polygamy, prostitution, cannibalism by mutual consent, euthanasia by mutual consent, etc. If some group disagrees with this and refuses to be tolerant (which does not mean agreement) and uses force or fraud in expressing their intolerance, they are lawbreakers. They are free to express their disagreement. No one, including the law has any right to do anything about it. We are also free to and should ignore these dissenters. They will ultimately decide to "agree to disagree" and avoid associating with those they do not respect.
This has long term survival advantages for mankind. If any choice except those which create conflict is allowed, all choices will be tried. We will gain knowledge of the consequences of many more choices and learn what is good and what is bad, allowing us to make better choices in the future. People will emulate good choices to enhance their survival. People will avoid bad choices, once the consequences are known. This will lead to a general improvement for all. This is the evolution of intelligence and civilization working properly, without interference or forceful control, leading to continuous Renaissance. This is how we achieved western civilization in the first place, before technology put power, media and educational influence in the hands of the unscrupulous who attempt to control mankind´s evolution to their advantage.
Conversely, if choice is restricted, mankind may end up in an evolutionary dead-end, for instance by organizing ourselves in a manner that creates maximum conflict to benefit the few, culminating in global thermonuclear war and extinction of mankind.
16.3 What is Fair?
It is no accident that mankind has had great difficulty and conflict over the concept of fairness. The quest of politicians throughout history has been to sell a definition of "fair" that will have wide appeal, allowing political power to be achieved. This, by definition, involves the creation of a scapegoat group to blame problems on. The worst mankind has yet seen is the treatment of Jews and other "non-conformists" in Nazi Germany. Currently, Muslims fighting for relief from oppression are the scapegoats. The horror of this is dwarfed by the potential consequences of destruction of productive activity and cooperation created by the conflict monger classes, enabled by suppression of the "rule of law". This problem can only get worse as the planet runs out of resources and energy supplies. Developing countries are also trying to industrialize, increasing competition. When the law is tolerant of forceful and fraudulent methods of goal seeking, allowing criminals to keep the proceeds of crime, this can only result in world war and risks the extinction of our species. On this path, the only possible peace is the peace of species extinction.
The reason "fair" is such a problematic concept is that there is no such thing or can ever be an absolute definition of fairness. There are as many definitions as there are people, since everyone´s environment, point of view, needs and wants are different. Any imposed definition of ‘fair", would be viewed as "unfair" by many people, creating conflict.
Since "fair" is a subjective definition, it is up to each individual to determine what is fair. In the absence of any law, "fair" is survival at any cost.
Under the "rule of law", "fair" is anything you are willing to consent to, as long as it does not create conflict. If you can get someone to agree to hire you at a million dollars an hour, this is fair. In dealing with yourself, fair is whatever you want. In dealing with others, "fair" is whatever you can mutually agree to.
Since you are master of your own destiny, should you decide to refuse to display initiative, work or make choices consistent with survival, the consequences are also of your own choosing. Whatever happens to you by your own choice is "fair", since it is what you decided to agree to.
People whining that life is not "fair" give the unscrupulous a pretext to gain political power by pretending to help them. The cost is a wasted, dependent, unhappy, pointless life for them and "unfairness" for everyone else who are forced to face the consequences for choices they did not make. Socially attempting to mitigate "unfairness by choice" creates conflict, destroys productivity and ultimately causes collapse (most recently, the former Soviet Union) as civilization bears the accumulated burden of poor choice. There is no reason for those choosing poorly to adapt and every reward saying they should not.
"Fair" is that you make your own choices and suffer or profit and learn from the consequences. "Fair" is freedom. "Fair" is the "rule of law". "Fair" is that we teach others how to cooperate and survive. "Fair" is that we give people a "hand up" and not a "hand out". "Fair" is that we teach and rehabilitate our criminals. "Fair" is what our ancestors fought and shed blood for. "Fair" is what has been stolen from us.
"Fair" is what we can take back, any time we choose. History says that this choice has only been made once, by the founding people of the United States of America. It has been stolen from us and western civilization is toppling as a consequence.
16.4 Thou Shall not Kill
To kill a fellow human being in other than self-defense is the ultimate theft of property, the life of the victim. Murder is conflict that creates further conflict by removing the victim from his family and those who depend on him who may seek revenge. Murder forever removes whatever contributions the victim may have been capable of making to society, an offense to all men. Murder is contrary to the highest value of man, which is life and thus deserving of the highest penalty of law.
16.5 Live and Let Live
As any two individuals or groups with equal capabilities or guns occupying an environment of limited resources soon learns, if you try to prey on or attempt to limit each other´s freedom, your life will be spent in conflict and neither will be able to survive until you each acknowledge the other´s right to exist and agree to either ignore each other or cooperate.
The rule of law makes no value statement other than to forgo conflictual methods, live in peace by engaging in trade in an environment where the law cannot discriminate on any basis or be used to seek advantage. As consequence, the "rule of law" gives no ability to impose any value, such as religion on your fellows. If you try to use force or fraud to do so, the law must and will retaliate. You do have the right to try to persuade your fellows to voluntarily agree with you, just as they have the right to ignore you. Should you harass and not cease when asked, you are stealing someone´s time which is their property, without their consent, a crime.
The end result is, if you want to be free to live according to your values, you must also acknowledge the right of everyone else to live according to theirs no matter how much you disagree, limited only by the "rule of law" This is called tolerance. Should you refuse to be "tolerant" and try to impose your will on others by any means not involving their informed consent, the law must act against you for using either forceful or fraudulent methods.
16.6 Agree to Disagree
There will always be differences of opinion between individuals and groups due to different priorities, different goals, differences in acknowledged fact or any arbitrary number of reasons. The bottom line is that people are free to believe and act in any manner they choose, independent of any else´s opinion, subject only to the constraints imposed by "the rule of law". After exhausting all lawful methods of persuasion and failing, conservation of personal resources implies the only choice is to "agree to disagree" and accept the fact that people have the right to disagree with you, just as you have the right to disagree with them. This is true even if the facts are on your side. Accept this. It is a fact under "the rule of law".
16.7 Freedom of Speech
The basic purpose and moral authority of the "rule of law" is elimination of conflict in pursuit of mankind´s collective survival. To use force to impose something on anyone is by definition conflict creating and can only be used in response to conflict creation.
Even in the most harmonious of societies, differences of opinion will arise in the personal and public realms. Correct choices leading to dispute resolution and social consensus requires objective consideration of all the facts and all alternatives. This means that all must be free to speak their minds and say whatever they want. The listener is free to choose whether to listen. A competition between ideas will occur and the one with the most support will win. If all the facts are available and all of the opinions heard and evaluated, this should be the best decision. Suppressing facts or speech leads to an incomplete understanding of the problem and options, resulting in faulty decision-making.
In addition, suppressing free speech on any subject matter leads to frustration in citizens who are led to believe their opinion does not matter to the general public and they will take their discussions underground with like minded people and possibly mutate to a conflictual social force with a potential of violence.
For instance, the suppression of "hate speech" directed against a group deprives society of a warning that the target group may be engaging in unlawful activity, perhaps aided by corruption in the law, requiring public investigation and consideration of the facts. "Hate speech" laws deprive us of this warning by threatening punishment to those who make it. This poses a risk to society.
Conversely, if the allegations are unfounded, a record will exist of what the facts are and the "hate speech" will be exposed as a lie. Allowing "hate speech", even if a lie will keep this group a part of public dialog, in the public eye, subject to ultimate discrediting and persuasion of their errors, adding one more proven truth to the knowledge of man. Suppression of "hate speech" will encourage this group to go underground and collect like minded supporters out of the public eye, free to tell any lie, with no opportunity for the truth and public input to be considered. This will create a socially isolated group, convinced that reasonable dialog is impossible and whose frustration must ultimately manifest as violence.
"Hate speech" laws are yet another example of subtle laws which create conflict for the benefit of those who prosper by conflict.
In addition, under the "rule of law", everyone is free to live in peace so long as they don´t disturb it. I doubt that there would be any "hate speech" from any but criminals whose chosen means of survival has been prohibited. We need to hear from these people, in order to understand and fight them for mutual self-interest.
"Hate speech" may also be taken care of by legal penalties for lying or slander in the public realm. Under the "rule of law", this would be interpreted as an illegal attempt to fraudulently achieve goals by influencing the public whose interests requires truth.
16.8 Freedom of Association
Under the "rule of law", everyone is a sovereign individual, a legally inviolate person who cannot have anything imposed on or taken from them without their fully informed consent.
Association by definition involves at least one other person who agrees to trade their time together and perhaps cooperate in some mutual undertaking. The only legal relationships allowed between individuals and groups are those to which all parties agree. By definition, this means that freedom of association is a relationship involving mutual consent.
Association can be refused by any individual or group for any reason, meaning that freedom to associate is also freedom not to associate.
Law is prohibited from discriminating on any basis except against criminals. Government, as a publicly owned service created by laws also cannot discriminate. This means they cannot refuse to associate with some or choose to not associate with some. This means that public toilets provided by government cannot exclude anyone on any basis.
Other individuals and groups are under no such legal obligation. Association must be a mutually agreed thing. This means that individuals and groups are free to refuse to associate with gays, blacks, women, men or any other individual or group on whatever discriminatory basis they may choose. This allows like minded individuals to seek mutually agreed goals and compete with others. The best ideas will win, to the benefit of all.
As unfair as this may sound to some, this has long term survival and prosperity advantages for all of mankind, including the groups who are discriminated against. Groups which are excluded or suffer some disadvantage will form their own groups and learn from their competitive failures. They will compete on a level playing field with the groups that exclude them. At some point, they will either earn the respect required to be freely associated with or surpass the group that excludes them, forcing further competition.
If a group persists in clinging to their beliefs or attributes which leaves them at a disadvantage and refuse to earn respect causing their fellows to consider them not worthy of association, they are free to do so. Their life is their own. They face the consequences of their own choices.
Under the "rule of law", innovation and associations are completely unfettered. The peaceful competition this allows means the best idea always wins. Optimal survival choice of the rest means they willingly accept and profit from the best ideas. This leads to a general improvement in the quality of life and knowledge for all of mankind. This is the reason for the past prosperity of western civilization. Lack of this is the reason that civilization is failing to meet the survival needs of citizens.
Consider the chosen method of survival of those groups which claim life is unfair for some, pretending altruism. They demand that we provide them with wealth and power to stop the "disadvantaged" from suffering by the unfairness of life. The result is that we remove the incentive for these people to consider their own survival, removing their self esteem and primary purpose in life (survival by providing value to their fellows), dooming them and their descendents who learn this bad choice to a pointless existence. I concede the point that there are truly disadvantaged people who do require help, which is discussed elsewhere.
16.9 Freedom of Information
As part of the public´s crucial role in tightly controlling government and the law (who are our employees) and making informed choice, the facts must be available.
Under the "rule of law", government and the law are not allowed to engage in any activity that creates conflict and must earn their keep, the same as any other group.
This means that the pretexts of "national security", privacy, etc are invalid. National security is achieved by not behaving in an offensive manner, thereby having no reason for a large, pugnacious military or secrets to keep. For external foes attracted by your prosperity, a well armed, free population will take care of any invaders and make a poor target, impossible to subdue. The public needs to know exactly what their government and the law is up to, in all areas. Any unobserved government or legal activity is, by historical experience a festering corruption with malicious intent seeking goals against common interest, in pursuit of government advantage.
It is even more important to closely watch the law, since the law not only controls society, it controls government. The law wields absolute power and we need to see how it is used and what is accomplished, on a case by case basis. Secret arrests, trials and incarcerations under any pretext can too easily be used to achieve goals contrary to common interest and the "rule of law".
For example, the pretext of "protecting the children" from public embarrassment is used to close divorce courts from media scrutiny and publication. A close analysis of judicial decisions in this area would reveal that whichever parent has less income gets the children, independent of critical factors such as alcoholism or parenting ability, keeping one parent fighting for the children and relief from punitive support payments and the other fighting for income. The children remain in between, subject to ruthless parental manipulation and irresolvable conflict. This interferes with parents teaching their children, opening the door for a more sheep-like indoctrination from state schools, which seek a more docile and easily exploited population. In Canada, the suicide and murder rates of parents undergoing divorce are quite high and hidden by the government.
The public is in control. Our ancestors shed blood to establish this basic fact and we may need to soon do the same re-establish this fact. We need full and accurate information in all areas to do our job of controlling those who have the power to enslave us before it is again necessary for general rebellion and social collapse to re-establish who is really in control. Governments and the law oppose this and want to follow their own agenda, per their natures as groups seeking dominance by playing the Neanderthal games of corruption, divide and conquer, abuse of power, hypocrisy and lies which the people won centuries ago. It is centuries past time to deal with this and move on.
16.10 The Right to The Truth
Since the public is in charge, we need the full, unvarnished truth in order to fulfill our role as decision-makers in forming the policies that affect ourselves.
If you ask government or the law for the reasons why they do what they do, you will get what is called a pretext, an excuse in some way rationalized to an aspect of "public good" or "necessity". What you will not get is all of the relevant facts and considerations leading to their conclusion, which prevents the public from determining if it is a reasonable course of action. There is a reason for this. These groups incorrectly claim to be in the position of "problem solver". As a problem solver myself, I know for a fact that there is no single or simple reason for making any decision or choosing a particular course of action. Everything is connected to everything else, leading to the risk of unintended consequences. All relevant facts, constraints, options, goals and consequences must be considered. The decision or course of action is chosen based on the best balance between the facts and desired result.
It is a fact that the public, through the political process are the problem solvers and we are in control, constrained only by the "rule of law", preventing discrimination on any basis except criminal. Our politicians and judges are proxy problem solvers, following strict rules, pursuing our goals, guided by the public´s will in the area of common interest.
Absence of the full truth allows government and the law to include decision considerations to the benefit of their groups at the expense of society as a whole. As a consequence, all legal proceedings and government policy meetings must be held under public and media scrutiny, with a full public record available. In addition, some means must be provided to obligate judges and government decision makers to promptly answer public and media questions regarding facts and options not considered. Without the overall guidance of the "rule of law", lack of full disclosure and public involvement in fully informed decision-making has resulted in major deterioration of freedom, prosperity and social order in western democracies. This has also caused major international disharmony and threatens worldwide war and a general collapse of civilization.
Under the "rule of law", the power and degree of damage that government and the law can do is severely limited, which is the whole point. This still does not fully control government and the law. We must know the full truth in order to guide our societies and solve problems. Truth is a fundamental right and necessary to steer our collective course for mutual survival.
We must demand the full truth from our "public servants". We must also immediately dismiss them if they lie or mislead. This also applies to broken political promises, which is goal-seeking using fraud, a crime, contrary to the highest law of man.
16.11 Freedom of The Media
Not only do we need total information availability in the areas of government, law and public opinion, we need a public forum in which to both access and discuss this information. The press and other media serve this function. Our freedom and survival requires this critical social function to do its job, so we can do ours.
The fact that a social function is required to impartially collect and present accurate information in matters of public interest results in the creation of another group, those we collectively call the media. As a group, it also has a limited viewpoint and is prone to seek as much power and advantage over other groups as is possible, using whatever environmental advantages its position allows.
The media has the power to shape public opinion by the information and opinion it chooses and does not choose to present. Additionally, the point of view and context that this information is presented with is able to shape public opinion. In others words, the media is able to choose what information is relevant and influence how it is interpreted. The media is thus a filter determining what we see and presents an initial point of view on meaning. The media also has the power to suppress dissenting facts and points of view. Thus, the media has a monopoly in the area of shaping public opinion. As a group, seeking survival, the media has its own agenda to collect as much power and wealth as possible with monopoly control of dispensing crucial information and opinion.
Given this crucial power and the natural opposition of government and law to having this power used against them, attempting to control the media is a necessary survival goal for those who would make us slaves. This is why we need "freedom of the press". To guard against the media monopolizing information for its own advantage, "freedom of information" must apply to all citizens both for the purpose of making information that the media chooses to suppress available to the public and to allow any citizen to create a competing information source.
Apart from supposed "necessary" publication bans of "national security" information, prohibition of publishing the details of legal matters pending to allow "uninfluenced" justice (and other anti-freedom and denial of who really is in control pretexts used to suppress information in key areas at key times), we do have laws limiting government suppression of what is disclosed in all but the most critical areas. This is yet another battle to be fought, for totally unfettered freedom of information and publication rights. Since government and law are controlled and paid for by the people, this makes all information in these areas public property.
Assuming that all information is legally available and publishable, there are still impediments to the press doing its job correctly.
The media is a group seeking to profit by the publication and dissemination of information that customers consider of value in the areas of paying to have information published (advertising) and for readers interested in knowledge of their environment as an aid for decision-making in their lives.
The media must thus strike a balance between the conflicting demands of advertisers and readers (persuaders/persuaded) and do their best to increase the number of customers and perceived value of their service. In addition, media owners belong to some other group and inevitably have some agenda of their own. As property holders, media owners have every lawful right to influence the agenda of their personal property. The media is also required to perform the crucial public service of providing objective information and all relevant opinions on matters affecting the public as an aid to the public controlling government and law. The media provides this crucial public service and is influenced by concerns (owners, advertisers, increasing customers) that are inevitably in conflict with the necessary social function of media.
As a key function of maintaining our freedom and civilization, it is of public concern that the media does its job in a thorough and impartial manner. Although this seems to imply that media should be a public function of government, it must also be impartial and hostile to government influence which requires media to be independent of government and government funding. Thus, the media must be privately owned and totally independent of government influence. As a group, "under the rule of law" the media must engage in honest trade to meet its survival goals, which means telling the truth, pleasing its customers and providing value.
Media performs the functions of investigation, information collection, analysis, selection, publication and distribution, all subject to influence detracting from its critical social function, with a public interest in keeping the media focused on its primary job and free of contrary influence.
One major influence is government advertising (propaganda, look how great we are) which makes government both an influencer of public opinion and a customer, able to withhold a large amount of business in retaliation for media publication of information not to the liking of government. The public requires the facts and not government spin. Since the government is fully under control of the public, it is within our power to demand a ban of government advertising so we can judge based on the facts, rather than spin and remove a very coercive influence on media and a large public expense simultaneously. This is something that both government and the media will strongly oppose. Too bad, it is our right and necessary for our collective survival to totally dominate and control government and we therefore must insist.
Another major influence is the agendas of media owners, which is their lawful right as property owners. Some way has to be found to limit or eliminate this influence or trade something to persuade media owners to willingly not exercise their lawful prerogatives. One possibility is to acknowledge the legal point that willingly disseminating information containing untruths, misleading statements or less than full disclosure of the facts and relevant opinion makes the media an accessory to fraud on the part of whoever is trying to manipulate the public in the achievement of some goal. This, in addition to the source of the lies being fully prosecuted for attempting to deceive the public into meeting some goal using fraud and/or libel. In a word, media must publish the truth and label all else opinion. This solves all problems except for the suppression of fact and dissenting opinion. This may be taken care of by competing media, which will seek the competitive advantage of discrediting their competition.
Currently, the public service role of media has no explicit remuneration for exposing unlawful acts on the part of government and law. In fact, government can retaliate by withdrawing advertising business to media that refuses to be docile. In addition to bans on government advertising, some reward must be available to coerce media to be diligent and hostile to government and law. Adequate whistleblower protection laws and legislated rewards based on a percentage of the value of the corruption exposed should be available to all citizens, including reporters and media.
This leaves only the influence of the demand to increase circulation which may preclude some information. For instance, the fact that the law and government are totally corrupt groups engaging in crimes against humanity resulting is us being ruled by divide and conquer and conflict creation has the side-effect of creating very news worthy items such as murder, violence, crime, economic instability and war which are pertinent to readers survival, thus increasing news, demand and circulation.
This is the most important story of all time. The media, acting contrary to their crucial role as civilization´s watchdogs, choose to ignore the murder and ongoing destruction of freedom and civilization. This story is bad for the business of media and is thus suppressed. Under the "rule of law", life is peaceful, conflict free and socially boring, lacking in the sensational events, moral outrages and threats to our survival required for media consumers to be in a heightened state of paranoid self-defense, glued to the media, attempting to understand, navigate and survive in a very dangerous world. The media must suppress this truth and be an accessory to the collapse of civilization to prosper. This is further evidence that individuals and groups have absolutely no allegiance or moral values with regard to the fate their fellow man or species. Only the "rule of law" keeps us acting in common interest.