“This law of nature, being co-eval with mankind and dictated by God himself, is of course superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe, in all countries, and at all times: no human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this.”—William Blackstone, 1765
If you work in the upper echelons of government you have to have reasons to maintain your hold on your position. So, you do busy work to make yourself look important and needed. That busy work includes making laws and generally screwing up the lives of as many individuals as possible so they don't forget you are there.
Most of these people need government for protection as they can do little of anything useful outside of it. That is why we need no congress or authoritarian interface with our pretend masters as they have no usefulness in the new world.
We are well past the idiom that if we make a law, they will follow it. Congress always panders to the highest bidder, not the common man.
Agreed. And I rarely buy books because I realized from a young age that I would never be able to support my reading habit, thus I go through the revolving door at my library, and they rock! They get books from all over the country if they don't have my request or maybe even order it. I'll put the request in for this book for the library to purchase too. (We still pay our taxes, might as well have it go for a good purpose.)
I ask because my wife is a true crime writer and I run the entire "back end" of the indie publishing company that holds her 20+ titles. I want to see you be very successful propagating these ideas so I'd be happy to help you any way I can. I'm also not far behind you with my own indie venture trying to light the same flame of peaceful progress that you are.
We really don't need Congress. Especially since they aren't doing their job as mandated by the Constitution. Congress is supposed to be making the laws, not the alphabet agencies. As per the constitution, only Congress can pen laws that the president signs that can get people put in prison. The alphabet agencies aren't even supposed to exist, much less get to make regulations that can jail people.
Just look at what's happening since Congress isn't doing its job. The DOJ is making rules that imprison people. The FBI&ATF are setting people up for the DOJ. The FDA is working with pharmaceutical companies to sell junk pills to the citizens. The USDA isn't doing its job, which is to help farmers sell their crops. Every alphabet agency has become a little commie organization.
All these agencies have slowly eroded our freedom and liberty.
Yes, but even if it were functioning as (we presume) it was designed to function originally, it would still be a small group of people inventing laws and imposing them on everyone. That is bad, and we do not need it. All we need to do is apply (and enforce, as needed) natural law.
Manmade laws are like prescription drugs: every law needs subsidiary laws to deal with unintended consequences. I have toyed with the idea for a constitutional amendment that would put a four or six year expiration date on every law, state or federal, based on the premise that no generation should encumber their will on subsequent generations. That would require a review of every law and either elimination or rewrite.
However, it would be preferable to not have any new laws to be written in the first place.
Any improvement would be nice. But I am inclined to believe that Buckminster Fuller was right when he said, "You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete."
Him and the Great Roi Soleil, as a matter of fact. The latter put it into practice all throughout the French state behemoth, though of course his goal was to make it easier to be king. The common people were far too common to be considered.
But if the new "model" is to be a Spontaneously Organizing system, shouldn't it build itself? Grow organically, from the grassroots, instead of being built from the top down?
E.g. who built a free market economy? To replace an economy with a planned model is a Marxist idea. Don't the best systems of human interaction build themselves by gradually accumulating "improvements"? Isn't top-down-ism basically a leftist idea?
It's interesting that you take B. Fuller's quote that way, that the new model(s) would be imposed from the top.
I always took this quote to mean that any/everyone can build new models for themselves which others are free to adopt if they like it, and the best models will gain widespread adoption organically and voluntarily (bottom-up), never forced or coerced (top down).
I may need to find the context around his quote to see if there is any further illumination to this question.
"Manmade laws are like prescription drugs: every law needs subsidiary laws to deal with unintended consequences."
Yes, absolutely true. This is the problem with any “plan” for a new government. The Articles of Confederation were created to deal with the immediate problems of domination by Britain and the revolution against it. And then the Constitution was a fix for the Articles of Confederation and for exigencies of 1789. And, since the 1920s, a gradual coup of managerialism/leftism has replaced the Constitution with a top down hierarchy of control by Washington, DC elites. That new form of government was a plan, by the leftists, if a plan that was enacted over a period of decades.
Such plans never produce better government because the only good laws are those which emerge spontaneously from the interaction of the people in the society. Top-down plans and laws can never work as well as the spontaneous ones. I.e. The common law.
Brilliant idea! But not a new one. Thomas Jefferson wanted every law to sunset after 19 years.
"...no society can make a perpetual constitution, or even a perpetual law. The earth belongs always to the living generation. They may manage it then, & what proceeds from it, as they please, during their usufruct. They are masters too of their own persons, & consequently may govern them as they please. But persons & property make the sum of the objects of government. The constitution and the laws of their predecessors extinguished then in their natural course, with those who gave them being. This could preserve that being till it ceased to be itself, & no longer. Every constitution then, & every law, naturally expires at the end of 19 years."
Thomas Jefferson, letter written in Paris to James Madison (1789)
If Jefferson had not been in France during the constitutional convention but had been in America, he might have gotten that in the Constitution our country might still be free.
As I read your kind compliment, a vision occurred to me. The words are a pot. The ideas are a sauce. And my righteous fury at injustice is the flame.
What is going on in the world makes me very angry. I am compelled to do this no matter what, so thank you for supporting me financially, to help me keep doing it!
This post/chapter/article is just absolutely fantastic!! Thank you.
And this particular nugget is an absolute treasure: "Natural law is woven into the fabric of everything. Manmade law is a stain upon that fabric." I expect I will be using that one quite often from here on out.
Also thanks for the link to the Passio transcript, I wasn't aware that existed even though I've listened to nearly all of his digital content. I also found a transcript of all of his 200+ hours-long podcasts.
And the reference to the Fight of the Century, it's been years since I've seen that, it's a fantastic production! I believe there was a sequel made as well.
I just found them on twitter and it's about crowdsourcing laws and solutions. It's interesting since it hints to the fact that we don't need permanent a Congress.
Same with my idea of AI-Democracy, remove all politicians and relay on software for a new layer of rules without rulers.
A man-made law is not an "abomination" but rather is a constraint on a physical system. Currently, these constraints are made by politicians who are mostly lawyers but the need is for politicians who are mostly physical scientists of various kinds.
I understand what you are saying, Terry. But that just switches our overlords from one cohort to another.
We do need order, which means we do need rules of some sort. But we do not need those rules imposed from above. Nature already provides them. We just need to enforce what nature has provided.
And it doesn't really take a lot of enforcement, natural laws tend to be pretty self enforcing, that's what makes them real laws instead of the whims of some sick or misguided individual with a little "authority" as he supposes. With any real law you should be able to explain how breaking it will result in consequences you don't want to experience.
Regarding the magna carta, there is a lot of confusion and deliberate obfuscation on the subject. This is the most detailed info on MC that you'll find.
Indeed, the legal system is not Law. But They call it "law" to get Us to think We must obey. So for clarity, I coined the term, "legalate," to cover anything in that system...that We do not have to consent to. The fact that no One knows how many legalates are "on the books" right there says volumes about the axiom, "Ignorance of the law is no excuse," when "law" is a legalate.
There are three Laws...
The three Laws of Ethics (Natural Law expressed as the three things not to do):
1. Do not willfully and without fully informed consent hurt or kill the flesh of anOther
2. Do not willfully and without fully informed consent take or damage anything that does not belong to You alone
3. Do not willfully defraud anOther (which can only happen without fully informed consent)
I wrote a piece on that - presuming I haven't shared it before:
“This law of nature, being co-eval with mankind and dictated by God himself, is of course superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe, in all countries, and at all times: no human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this.”—William Blackstone, 1765
If you work in the upper echelons of government you have to have reasons to maintain your hold on your position. So, you do busy work to make yourself look important and needed. That busy work includes making laws and generally screwing up the lives of as many individuals as possible so they don't forget you are there.
Most of these people need government for protection as they can do little of anything useful outside of it. That is why we need no congress or authoritarian interface with our pretend masters as they have no usefulness in the new world.
We are well past the idiom that if we make a law, they will follow it. Congress always panders to the highest bidder, not the common man.
I look forward to buying the physical hard copy of this book.
Agreed. And I rarely buy books because I realized from a young age that I would never be able to support my reading habit, thus I go through the revolving door at my library, and they rock! They get books from all over the country if they don't have my request or maybe even order it. I'll put the request in for this book for the library to purchase too. (We still pay our taxes, might as well have it go for a good purpose.)
Thank you both. I too look forward to a hard copy. Now I just have to finish writing it! 🤣🤣
I appreciate your support and your help in making it better!
I will buy it too once you have it ready for purchase! Long live Lysander Spooner!!
Thank you. I will endeavor to finish it in a fashion worthy of your enthusiasm.
May I ask how you will market it? Amazon, Audible, etc?
Yes, I should think so. Though I will look at all my options to be sure.
I will also give copies directly to founding subscribers to my Substack.
I ask because my wife is a true crime writer and I run the entire "back end" of the indie publishing company that holds her 20+ titles. I want to see you be very successful propagating these ideas so I'd be happy to help you any way I can. I'm also not far behind you with my own indie venture trying to light the same flame of peaceful progress that you are.
I appreciate that very much. I would love to learn more.
We really don't need Congress. Especially since they aren't doing their job as mandated by the Constitution. Congress is supposed to be making the laws, not the alphabet agencies. As per the constitution, only Congress can pen laws that the president signs that can get people put in prison. The alphabet agencies aren't even supposed to exist, much less get to make regulations that can jail people.
Just look at what's happening since Congress isn't doing its job. The DOJ is making rules that imprison people. The FBI&ATF are setting people up for the DOJ. The FDA is working with pharmaceutical companies to sell junk pills to the citizens. The USDA isn't doing its job, which is to help farmers sell their crops. Every alphabet agency has become a little commie organization.
All these agencies have slowly eroded our freedom and liberty.
Yes, but even if it were functioning as (we presume) it was designed to function originally, it would still be a small group of people inventing laws and imposing them on everyone. That is bad, and we do not need it. All we need to do is apply (and enforce, as needed) natural law.
I love this book!
If I find the time, I will translate it.
Wow—thanks!!
This is great! There is no one I would consider more qualified to do this than Klaus, a man of great wisdom with a devotion to what is real.
❤️
Manmade laws are like prescription drugs: every law needs subsidiary laws to deal with unintended consequences. I have toyed with the idea for a constitutional amendment that would put a four or six year expiration date on every law, state or federal, based on the premise that no generation should encumber their will on subsequent generations. That would require a review of every law and either elimination or rewrite.
However, it would be preferable to not have any new laws to be written in the first place.
Any improvement would be nice. But I am inclined to believe that Buckminster Fuller was right when he said, "You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete."
Him and the Great Roi Soleil, as a matter of fact. The latter put it into practice all throughout the French state behemoth, though of course his goal was to make it easier to be king. The common people were far too common to be considered.
But if the new "model" is to be a Spontaneously Organizing system, shouldn't it build itself? Grow organically, from the grassroots, instead of being built from the top down?
E.g. who built a free market economy? To replace an economy with a planned model is a Marxist idea. Don't the best systems of human interaction build themselves by gradually accumulating "improvements"? Isn't top-down-ism basically a leftist idea?
Yes. What I am working towards will be as non-top-down as is possible while still being something more than nothing.
It's interesting that you take B. Fuller's quote that way, that the new model(s) would be imposed from the top.
I always took this quote to mean that any/everyone can build new models for themselves which others are free to adopt if they like it, and the best models will gain widespread adoption organically and voluntarily (bottom-up), never forced or coerced (top down).
I may need to find the context around his quote to see if there is any further illumination to this question.
"Manmade laws are like prescription drugs: every law needs subsidiary laws to deal with unintended consequences."
Yes, absolutely true. This is the problem with any “plan” for a new government. The Articles of Confederation were created to deal with the immediate problems of domination by Britain and the revolution against it. And then the Constitution was a fix for the Articles of Confederation and for exigencies of 1789. And, since the 1920s, a gradual coup of managerialism/leftism has replaced the Constitution with a top down hierarchy of control by Washington, DC elites. That new form of government was a plan, by the leftists, if a plan that was enacted over a period of decades.
Such plans never produce better government because the only good laws are those which emerge spontaneously from the interaction of the people in the society. Top-down plans and laws can never work as well as the spontaneous ones. I.e. The common law.
perfect analogy. We are over medicated
🔥
Brilliant idea! But not a new one. Thomas Jefferson wanted every law to sunset after 19 years.
"...no society can make a perpetual constitution, or even a perpetual law. The earth belongs always to the living generation. They may manage it then, & what proceeds from it, as they please, during their usufruct. They are masters too of their own persons, & consequently may govern them as they please. But persons & property make the sum of the objects of government. The constitution and the laws of their predecessors extinguished then in their natural course, with those who gave them being. This could preserve that being till it ceased to be itself, & no longer. Every constitution then, & every law, naturally expires at the end of 19 years."
Thomas Jefferson, letter written in Paris to James Madison (1789)
https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/01-12-02-0248
If Jefferson had not been in France during the constitutional convention but had been in America, he might have gotten that in the Constitution our country might still be free.
Love that you started with a Bucky Fuller quote. He had a way of saying a complex thing in a simple way, much like a great poet would.
I have a few more to use too. He said some great stuff.
Plus, I built a 1V icosahedron, so I'd like to think he'd be proud: https://christophercook.substack.com/p/gazebo-refuge-rain-covid-lockdowns-madness
Wonderful Christopher! You write on complex matters so succinctly, simply and with Energy!
As I read your kind compliment, a vision occurred to me. The words are a pot. The ideas are a sauce. And my righteous fury at injustice is the flame.
What is going on in the world makes me very angry. I am compelled to do this no matter what, so thank you for supporting me financially, to help me keep doing it!
So well said and I'm with you!
This post/chapter/article is just absolutely fantastic!! Thank you.
And this particular nugget is an absolute treasure: "Natural law is woven into the fabric of everything. Manmade law is a stain upon that fabric." I expect I will be using that one quite often from here on out.
Also thanks for the link to the Passio transcript, I wasn't aware that existed even though I've listened to nearly all of his digital content. I also found a transcript of all of his 200+ hours-long podcasts.
And the reference to the Fight of the Century, it's been years since I've seen that, it's a fantastic production! I believe there was a sequel made as well.
Thank you 🙏
I think that Fight of the Century is the sequel. I love the first one, but I love the sequel even more!
wish i could thumbs up the wonderful commentators here not sure why I m not being allowed to thumbs them up.
If you are using the app, I cannot say. I used it for about 20 minuets and went right back to the browser version. Much better, IMO.
yeah I am on my laptop I went back to a flip phone…feels great to be off those phones. Have a great evening.
Yeah, I am older Gen X—I like computers and email 😆
Have you heard about PoliciesForPeople? https://www.policiesforpeople.com/
I just found them on twitter and it's about crowdsourcing laws and solutions. It's interesting since it hints to the fact that we don't need permanent a Congress.
Same with my idea of AI-Democracy, remove all politicians and relay on software for a new layer of rules without rulers.
I loved this post btw
Interesting; thank you.
In the ideal scenario, of course, you must be able to choose whether or not to be governed even by crowdsourced laws.
But it would certainly be an improvement over what we have now!
👍🙏
A man-made law is not an "abomination" but rather is a constraint on a physical system. Currently, these constraints are made by politicians who are mostly lawyers but the need is for politicians who are mostly physical scientists of various kinds.
I understand what you are saying, Terry. But that just switches our overlords from one cohort to another.
We do need order, which means we do need rules of some sort. But we do not need those rules imposed from above. Nature already provides them. We just need to enforce what nature has provided.
And it doesn't really take a lot of enforcement, natural laws tend to be pretty self enforcing, that's what makes them real laws instead of the whims of some sick or misguided individual with a little "authority" as he supposes. With any real law you should be able to explain how breaking it will result in consequences you don't want to experience.
Exactly. Otherwise known as the law of consequence/cause and effect. A natural aspect of natural law.
Regarding the magna carta, there is a lot of confusion and deliberate obfuscation on the subject. This is the most detailed info on MC that you'll find.
https://www.thebernician.net/from-brutus-to-qeii-the-british-common-law-timeline/
Looking forward to reading this!
Indeed, the legal system is not Law. But They call it "law" to get Us to think We must obey. So for clarity, I coined the term, "legalate," to cover anything in that system...that We do not have to consent to. The fact that no One knows how many legalates are "on the books" right there says volumes about the axiom, "Ignorance of the law is no excuse," when "law" is a legalate.
There are three Laws...
The three Laws of Ethics (Natural Law expressed as the three things not to do):
1. Do not willfully and without fully informed consent hurt or kill the flesh of anOther
2. Do not willfully and without fully informed consent take or damage anything that does not belong to You alone
3. Do not willfully defraud anOther (which can only happen without fully informed consent)
I wrote a piece on that - presuming I haven't shared it before:
Calling a Legalate a Law (article): https://amaterasusolar.substack.com/p/calling-a-legalate-a-law