View single post by Joe Kelley
 Posted: Mon Aug 13th, 2018 09:10 pm
PM Quote Reply Full Topic
Joe Kelley


Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6369
Consensus among all evidence is evidence of fact, contradictory evidence is evidence of error in finding fact, and since law is a natural human condition knowable as morality, then science applied to law is only that law which all humans agree on: voluntary association admits of no decenters; descent and you can move on. I think that the ideas known in our time as anarchism (definitions supplied by such people as Lysander Spooner, Josiah Warren, Stephen Pearl Andrews, Benjamin Tucker, etc., and not the definition that agrees with involuntary association forced by some upon others: might makes right) are - voluntary association ideas are - a lot older ideas than what we have been led to believe, such as the quote from the Revolutionary Congress concerning the meaning of federation: voluntary association.

This parallel between a process known (by experience and stored in memory) as science and the process known as law is a parallel that agrees with the voluntary association process. Science places disagreement of facts into a set, or category, that requires greater effort to find facts, in that case, while science remains to be the idea that a fact is only a working idea, a working measure, until - almost inevitably - there are contradictions: so science never admits to having a fact "forever," which then places science into the category of adaptability: that stuff that is required for life to survive. Law, as a process, admits to no guilt unless an attempt has been made to ask everyone for a unanimous verdict, which is an adaptation from an earlier error in finding fact of law: dictatorship, despotism, rule by a few upon many, or rule by one over many.

The law as it existed in the work supplied by lysander Spooner is the law that asked everyone to maintain a voluntary association within reason, expediently (hence the term speedy trial), and in that law process someone found guilty was asked to pay the fine. If the fine was not paid, then the disagreement was charged to the one who disagreed. Having disagreed: the one not paying the fine was volunteering to be an out-law. Once outside the law, by a voluntary choice, the outlaw was no longer, by his, or her, choice, protected with the agreed upon, voluntary, process.

Case in point: Someone wades through the local playground eating all the children. All the people agree that this is proof positive that this outlaw is beyond any law agreed upon by moral people, but the process is applied anyway. The baby eater is found guilt by 11 randomly selected individuals, but one happened to be another baby eater. That one juror refused to agree that the baby eater on trial did anything wrong, and the baby eater was set free. The jury set the fine at an amount that baby eater could afford, which was that law of the land when law was moral and voluntary. The baby-eater, acquitted, refused to pay the fine. That put the baby-eater outside the boundaries of moral law, in that case, by his own choice. Then a mob made up of all the parents of the eaten babies descended upon the outlaw, ending the life of the outlaw, as if the outlaw was a mad dog running loose in the playground.

That is a made up story of course. It would not likely be the case that a fellow baby eater would be randomly selected from the population, and it would be more likely that the jury in that case would step into that grey area of morality, and they would agree that the baby eater was no different than a mad dog, a non-moral-human, and a very serious threat to peace, and babies. The jury would skip the formality of a fine, and the jury would find it a fact that the baby eater was a mad dog type being. The jury, representing the population that doesn't eat babies, claims that the baby eater chose to go outside agreeable law when the baby eater ate all those babies. The jury would thereby allow the public at large to determine what will be done with a mad dog that is caught red-mouthed feasting on the blood of the innocent. Hell, in those days who would claim that whoever was at the baby eating scene would be guilty of any crime, if they killed the mad dog right then and there: taking the law into their own hands?

In the latest book I am reading it was custom in early America for people to deputize themselves, and demand other's the same duty, to quickly, without delay, take up arms and go after known criminals in the area. How did we go from we the people are the government, we having hands, therefore we always have the law in our hands - until we don't agree to do so anymore - while we are alive - going from that - to these idiotic , and servile, situations where we claim that only these people giving themselves license, or authority, can know the law, let alone process it?