The LAW (whose law, why?)

[norman]

Perhaps, this thread will broaden and grow.

I don't think I have much to add, but there may be others who can breath life into it to inform and inspire the rest of us.


The Law - The Classic Blueprint for a Just Society - by Frédéric Bastiat
LibertyInOurTime - May 20, 2011

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=KlN4K5IdFnA

How is it that the law enforcer itself does not have to keep the law? How is it that the law permits the state to lawfully engage in actions which, if undertaken by individuals, would land them in jail?

These are among the most intriguing issues in political and economic philosophy. More specifically, the problem of law that itself violates law is an insurmountable conundrum of all statist philosophies.

The problem has never been discussed so profoundly and passionately as in this essay by Frederic Bastiat from 1850. The essay might have been written today. It applies in ever way to our own time, which is precisely why so many people credit this one essay for showing them the light of liberty.

Posted by Bill Ryan (here)
When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men in a society, over the course of time, they create for themselves a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it.

Frédéric Bastiat (1801—1850)

UK Column - A Dissident's Guide To The Constitution (series)

UK Column - A Dissident's Guide to the Constitution: Episode 1


UK Column - A Dissident’s Guide to the Constitution: Episode 2 — Common Law


UK Column - A Dissident’s Guide to the Constitution: Episode 3 — Rights


UK Column - A Dissident's Guide to the Constitution: Episode 4 — Democracy: The Books


UK Column - A Dissident's Guide to the Constitution: Episode 5, Part I — Democracy: a British value?


UK Column - A Dissident's Guide to the Constitution: Episode 5, Part II — A Lawless Lawmaker


UK Column - A Dissident's Guide to the Constitution: Episode 6 — Rule of Whose Law?

[shaberon]

Curious.

Yes, the issues of the time are basically what we still face today.

I notice the problems are attributed to statist philosophies.

The counter-argument would be those of national philosophies.

Notice I am not saying nationalist, as this is a synonym for "statist" in most actual uses since the nineteenth century.

The roles of Orthodoxy and of Dharma are far more national, and work very differently when applied well.

The author in question came from the Napoleonic era, which is pretty much the birth of modern Fascism, or "immortal property".

After this, with the possible exception of Switzerland, almost all European revolutions had but one goal, to overthrow monarchy.

This was not the goal of the American Revolution, so, the idea of revolution simply to destroy order is false.

Ideally, monarchy is a nation, that is, a population with substantial common ground of language and shared traditions. In this sense, the modern United States is not a nation, whereas "Arab" or "Aramean" are.

And you will notice *most* of those revolutions are based on words, on slogans, on a form of excitable mind manipulation, which, yes, evolves to "spreading Democracy", giving speakers the chance to always feel justified that the "right" thing finally happened.

This "hypocritical rulership" thing tends to happen in all societies, unless you educate and protect yourselves from it. And in most cases, that's what the ancient world did; it would slip into the grip of some maniac for a while, and then that oppression would be removed by a national revolution, or something close to that. Modern equivalents appear to be taking place in Africa, not Europe. The European one is uncomfortably and deeply French, even since before there was an "England". That is, the Patrician class that was effectively displaced by the end of the Roman Empire, anchored itself again near Toulouse, and has been snowballing laws for its benefit since the 800s.

That's correct it "creates a legal system". It does not create a "society" or any basic body of law governing it; instead, you find slow changes eroding things in favor of the privileged class. This is exactly what happened in the United States, whose revolutionaries had no more intention to write The Constitution than they did to promote the policies upheld today. Remember, the Constitutional debate was opposed by a thousand armed men in Rhode Island. We were warned about it forming a "consolidated government" for the benefit of Wall Street. That's before the ink was on the paper.