Looking back, I would have made a great lawyer, but an even better Jurist.
But I’m a philosopher and that Trumps being a Jurist.
One move in the game of Nous is:
Anything You Can Do I Can Do Meta.
Philosophy is Seven Dimensional Chess.
But I digress.
Court is Now in Session.
I find the whole idea of a Judge being “within the legal mainstream” Comical and deeply Corrupt.
This is yet another example sign of how democracy perverts and distorts everything.
Peter Thiel claimed that freedom and democracy were no longer Compatible.
They never were Peter; the appearance of Compatibility was only Contingent.
What is the Concept Law?
The Concept of Law is that:
Law is Law.
Law cannot be changed by popular Consensus.
Law cannot be changed by Corcerion.
Law Is Law
Ok, so let’s go Meta.
What is the purpose of law?
The purpose of law is to prevent Chaos.
Law prevents Chaos by Constraining human behaviour.
Specifically, law Constrains human behaviour by Controlling human behaviour. Law is there to Control humans and to Channel their Competitive Characteristics — which often manifest themselves in violent Conflict — into something productive, something Civilised.
Law is the foundation of Civilisation.
To be Civilised, is to be lawful.
If law is the foundation of Civilisation, then Criminality and violent Conflict are InCompatible with those Concepts.
Commerce, meanwhile, is the Crown jewel of Civilisation.
Commerce, of course, requires Law.
And Law requires Order.
Civilisation is therefore Law and Order.
The terms are tautological.
So that is the purpose of Law — the what for; so what is the what of and how come?
Law is Law
Law is essentially a Contract between two or more parties that specifies the rules and regulations — the Conduct of each parties.
Law is, we assume of course, answerable to norms that are deeper than the laws themselves.
One such norm is Consent.
A Contract is recognised if it is based upon voluntary unCoerced Consent.
If one Compels someone, using Coercion, beyond the rules stipulated by Voluntary Contract, then that is unCivilised.
Consider the possibility of a Community based on sexual Collectivism.
The sex Commissar decides that Female597H1C4 is to provide comfort and care to Male438J4D0 by Command of Comrade Steel, Supreme Commander of the Great Collective of Cumland.
Consider a Community based on Coerced, involuntary slavery.
Here, the slaver captures and sells unfortunate humans to Farmer Brown to be used as farm equipment.
Or, indeed, a Community based of economic Collectivism AKA Communism.
In this regime, the Community decides by appointing Judges who oversee the Coerced, involuntary, transfer of wealth to the Community.
Does it matter if it is the Commissar or the Community which decides on the judge?
A Community is a Collection of People.
Another word for Community is Demos.
Another word for people is Volk.
Das Volk have decided to…..
Throw the Jews down the well……
Or send them to the crematoria…..
Is this Civilised?
Law is Law
So Law is, and here we mean, what it Ought to be (yes Hume I see you, now put down your hand please); Laws are rules, agreed to by voluntary Contract, governing Civilised life.
This Court does not recognise involuntary marriage.
This Court does not recognise involuntary labour.
This Cout does not recognise extortion.
If someone comes to your house, or your business, and orders you to give him money, this Court does not recognise any distinction between a Commissar and a Criminal.
In Law, the key Concept is Justice.
What is Justice Socrates and Jesus?
Justice is the accurate application of the law, which is the accurate application of the principles set forth in the agreement.
Agreements then, and that they are kep, is the axiomatic principle of Law:
Pacta sunt servanda (agreements must be kept).
A Judge is a human who judges.
To judge justly is to judge in accordance with the agreement or Contract.
The parties to the Contract are required to act in ways Consistent with the Contract.
Law is Law.
If not, then the party in breech of Contract will be Compelled to act, or they will be punished by the imposition of penalties whether Criminal or Civil.
The method of judging is as follows.
The judge analyses the material facts of the Case.
The judges either already Comprehends the principles of the Contract, or comes, by textual analysis, to Comprehend the principles.
Then, the judge Cranks out a judgement.
- Material facts: the Court finds that John, with premeditation, killed Jane for money by shooting her in the head.
- Principles of Contract: the Court determines that John has voluntarily signed a Contract promising not to engage in Criminality, which includes not engaging in murder for money.
- Judgement: John is therefore guilty of murder. Therefore John is a Criminal. Therefore John will be punished. Therefore John will hanged upon the gibbet until he is dead.
- Rebuttal condition: the Court finds no mitigating Circumstances which would exempt John from the judgment of this Court.
Take the prisoner away.
And that is the Majesty of the Law.
Law is Law.
Law is not based on the will of Das Volk.
Law is not based on the Kratos of the Demos.
Law is not Democracy.
Law is Law.
The role of the judge is to accurately apply the law as it is, as it was voluntarily agreed to by the parties to the Contract.
This is known as Legal Formalism:
However, it would be more accurate to simply call it Law.
The concept of an ideological judge is a Contradiction.
The concept of a judge who is “outside the ideological mainstream” of the opinion of the demos, or the oligarchy, or even the monarch, is a Corruption of Law.
A judge is a referee, an umpire.
A referee in a football game does not award penalties because it would please the crowd, but because the facts of the matter, in Conjunction with the rules, require it.
Law is Law.
The Rules are the Rules.
The Game is the Game.
And if there is no agreement?
Then there is no Law.
And if “agreements” are involuntarily imposed?
Then the concept of Contract is inadmissible, the Concept of Contract here is Corrupt; in fact, one cannot speak of Contract in this way for it is a Contradiction.
Civilisation is Law.
Barbarism or anarchy is a state of lawlessness.
Parties who have no agreement with each other, exist in a state of nature.
Which is to say, they exist in a state of war, or threat of war.
And in war, the law is silent. (Inter arma enim silent leges).
Parties who are not party to any agreement, but who seek, via Coercion, to obtain goods and services from the Civilised, are barbarians.
Barbarians are beyond the law, and the Civilised may therefore use any and all means necessary to Compel the barbarian to come to terms — to agreement.
Such is the paradox of Civilisation.
That Civilisation is founded upon war, sustained by the threat of war, and kept secure by the use of war.
Another term for war is Coercion — organised Coercion.
A democracy is a civil war by other means; instead of chopping off heads, or shooting them, they are counted instead.
The threat of civil war, in any democracy, is always implicit because if the parties Conclude that their interests are better advanced by outright Coercion — violence — as opposed to winning votes by bribery, persuasion or intimidation, then that party, or faction, will do so.
Democracy is therefore inCompatible with Law, because the laws which govern relations between people and between the state and people, and between nations, are always subject to informal (or democratic) change.
Democracy Demands that you Shut Up and Pay.
Democracy Demands that you Shut Up and Believe.
Democracy Demands that you Shut Up and Die.
The referee determines that the goal is a goal, but the mob storm the pitch in protest.
The Game is Over.
The referee determines that the move was illegal, but the oligarchs threaten the judge with death.
The Game is Over.
The referee decides that cheating has occurred and that the cheater will be shown the Red Card, but the king decides to kill the referee.
The Game is Over.
If the Law is one thing, but the people — Das Volk — elect a Fuhrer who appoints judges that rewrite the laws according to either their private fancies or their ideological nostrums, then:
So, before this Court, we have a petition for Certiorari before judgment.
We seek to be informed as to what the scope and scale of the legal authorities are; how Consistent their judgements are within the Contract; how safe and secure the provisions of life and liberty are.
And what is the finding?
We find that, at the most basic, most fundamental, most elemental level, that there is no Agreement. There is no Contract. There is no Constitution.
And what Agreement there is, and what and whatever Constitution there is, has been Corrupted by politics,by democracy, by informal power.
By informal power we mean parties who control or influence decisions concerning law which are not subject to formal, publicly observed, rule based procedures for Contract, decision and arbitration.
A judge who judges a Case on what would be pleasing to a Political Party, a Church or a Corporation is judging informally, and of course, unjustly.
A judge who judges a Case in a certain way because it would likely advance her career is judging informally. And, of course, unjustly.
Justice is the accurate application of the Law.
However, that is insufficient as an end in itself.
Because we must answer who makes Law, and how.
And to answer that, we must move from legal philosophy to political philosophy.
It is, however, the Case that the Laws which require Compliance in modern democracies, as with every single state in the world today, have not been Consented to by voluntary Contract.
We draw attention to a curious Contradiction.
The Western Democracies claim to value Consent over (unjust) coercion:
1: Religious Consent ( and toleration).
2: Sexual Consent (and toleration).
3: Political Consent (and toleration).
4: Economic Consent ( no serfdom or slavery).
Yet, yet, the Law Compels people to Pay (Tax); the Law Compels Conformity (or outward, verbal Conformity) of belief (regarding many things involving Race, Sex or Religion; the Law, meanwhile, Compels the Civilised to live among Barbarians without Complaint.
When a group of people Compels someone or some group to pay money not required by any voluntary Contract we call it gangsterism.
When a group of people Compel another group to “believe” or act in ways not required by any voluntary Contract we call it Theocracy or Totalitarianism.
When a group of people Compel another group to live in conditions of anarchy, violence and terror……….What-Do-We-Call-It?