A Land of Laws?

Patriots and even plain folk who merely consider themselves citizens of a nation often have a great reverence and even fetishistic tenacity to the law. I have often heard the claim the United States is a land of laws, as if this should mean something to me and make me feel guilty for not prostrating myself before the allegedly mighty and benevolent State. Though such a claim is true in an unexpected way, the argument issuing thereof begs the question weather such laws do and should bind me or any other human.

When I place my finger upon a law, I am placing it on nothing more than paper and ink. So to live in a land of a laws is to inhabit a realm consisting of ink and paper. Just as middle-earth is a land of ink and paper. And if a person wishes to frolic in this land, I have no objection. Though you may dress as a hobbit, speak as an elf, stink as a dwarf, or grow a beard to rival a wizard's, I would not deny these pursuits to you. Though I believe such antics to be ill-advised my only demand is that you do not use violence to get me into your realm of ink and paper. The only thing that can bind me to ink and paper is my agreement to be so bound by it.

Further this paper and ink are not of my choosing, and were in fact never offered to me by any manner in which I could have chosen it. As I can tell even the authors of such paper and ink of the paper which claims to the the supreme law of the land did not write it in such a way to give evidence that they bound themselves to it. Primarily they did not sign it as a party. Additionally Article 1 Section 6 of the four pieces of paper titled "The Constitution of the United States" exempted those who operated as representatives under it from responsibility for their actions to anyone except themselves. (No Treason, Lysander Spooner) In simple terms, they declared that representatives need not be representative.

This is about as sensible as declaring that employment contracts need not offer exchange of labor for some other consideration, or that a sale need not entail some thing or interest be sold. It is far less sensible than a seeing-stone, glowing sword, ghost king, dragon, goblin, or giant spider queen because it is a direct contradiction. Language, the words formed with this ink on paper or the electronic analogy, can be used to declare what a thing appears to be and weather of not it is such a thing as it appears to be. Since the universe is not one indistinguishable mass but rather a myriad of entities or things distinguishable by qualities or combination of qualities that they entail which are absent in all other things. For example man is a rational animal. These qualities are known and describable only because they are distinct and differ from some other qualities.

To claim a thing is as it appears to be, while knowing that it contains qualities opposed to it's distinguishing set is to lie or intentionally present the unreal as real. A representative is one who acts for another. To become a representative is to take on another's interests as if they were your own. In the legal since a representative accepts a duty to carry out the other's interest as if they were is own. That the interest represented does not originate in the representative is the basic quality which leads to the doctrine of vicarious liability. With neither the duty or the liability present, qualities which are always associated with legal representation, the constitutional "representatives" are not what they appear to be, and the constitution does establish government by consent as it purports to establish.

So yes, the United States is a land of law. It is made of paper and ink. Many types of paper and ink such as histories, journals of science, sales slips, employment contracts, and expositions of the rules or logic are strongly linked to reality, with those things appearing within being as the appear often than not. Paper and ink such as Greek Mythology, The Lord of the Rings, and the Constitution of the United States and cannon subsequent to it to claim the unreal as real. Such false papers do not describe or even change reality. The land that I actually stand upon is not of paper and ink, but of minerals, microbes, plants and animals. Some of these animals are men that use the unreality and lies of Constitutions and Legislations to aide their exercise of violent control. Stop confusing opinions with reality. Your feet walk upon grass and concrete, rarely upon ink and paper, and never upon words. Laws do not create lands, but at best define and divide them.

I also often hear the term "nation of laws". While this is a more correct term, it also presents the unreal as real. A nation is not land. If you think so, where was Spain in 117 CE? A nation is political body, a group of people. Being part of a group can only entail duties if there is agreement to be a member. While it is claimed the United States is a political body, there is no evidence that anybody, anywhere, ever voluntarily agreed to become part of the United States. Though paper and words could in theory record the establishment a nation, none of the paper and words said to be of the United States can be said to have done so. None provide any evidence of any person every agreeing to bind themselves personally to such a body.

Anarchy and Moral Nihilism

I have noticed a sizable debate and contention between two factions of anarchists beginning 9 months or so ago on YouTube. A debate of ethics and moral nihilism peppered with colorful words and total frustration. One of the core principles of anarchism both parties agree on is the notion that one size does not, can not and should not fit all. The Moral Nihilists extend this idea or principles into ethics.

And I agree to an extent qualified such that Ethics and Politics are to be separated as concepts. Ethics very much is centered toward the question of how a person ought to behave in relation to his or her own self. An ethical or moral guideline saying that one should count backwards from ten when one is angered may be an invaluable tool for a person of a volatile character but a waste of time for someone of a more passive character. Ethics may and even must vary because the values, preferences, and characteristics of each individual are just that; individual and unlike any other.

However in the domain of politics the assertion of one-size fits all is far more plausible and grounded in empirical fact. Many who disagree would say this opinion, especially if arrived at by a Rothbardian natural law, is a remnant of the gross superstation and lazy religiosity. I can follow the logic of the conclusion easily. Gods commanded a unified and collective code of conduct that was right without regard to the individuals own uniqueness. A law based on an apriority natural law would seem to be guilty of this imposition, but given a few more minutes I will demonstrate why this is not the case at all.

To do this I will draw from the philosophy of another anarchist philosopher as illuminated by yet another anarchist philosopher. Roderick Long analyzed the legal philosophy and came up with a conclusion I find interesting and hope that it is capable of bridging the gap between the more emergent and moral nihilist version of anarchy with the more ethics based approach; that is to show once again a priori approaches to issues based on human nature have no conflict with a more directly empirical approach.

Spooner also has a natural law approach, but one that differs from Rothbard. Spooner defines his natural law as those conditions whose rough application lead to or ought to lead to peace. What Long has implied from this is that all legal codes incorporate these conditions in a significant manner and not by accident, but as an essential element of law. Any society, even one ruled by tyrants requires that most people are at peace with one another most of the time. Law if interpreted merely by the words is liable to mean as many different things as there are possible denotations and combination of denotation of the words used. Such a state of affairs is unlikely to create peace and once again it is found universally necessary to any legal system to adopt of natural law or libertarian methodology of interpreting the meaning of the words found in the positive legal codes.

In brief it is that law cannot be known or understood without knowing what law ought to be. Spooner unlike Rothbard does not base his natural law philosophy on the nature of what man is, but what the essential nature of what Law is a it emerges times and time again in society after society both statist and stateless alike. He bases his system on the empirical observation of what the essence of law as a revealed time and again in every system of law man has ever known.

Why exactly Spooner's approach studying the emergent essence of law to closely match the conclusion of Rothbard’s political philosophy based on the nature of man as a ration creature is unclear to me. Perhaps it is a human drive for empathy or reciprocation. Perhaps some complex game theory or study of utility is necessary to fully explain it. Whatever the cause for congruence it demonstrates that Rothbard’s one size fits all to natural law and political rules should not be rejected on that basis because the empirical facts back up the notion that any legal institution must incorporate principle of natural law. Just as the Misesian a priori approach was verified by extensive empirical data, Rothbard’s approach is supported by those elements are always present in substantial parts of any legal system.

Rape Cannot Be a Contract.

A reply to a blog post by Francois Tremblay, wherein it is claimed that

"Voluntaryists, it’s time for you to wake up. You’ve been indoctrinated and sold a false bill of goods. Stop being subjectivists and come back to reality, where good and evil do not depend on whether people sign on it or not.

Rape is unethical, regardless of what any piece of paper says. That is a fact. Stop believing pieces of paper trump facts."

Volutaryist do no not believe the pieces of paper trump fact, but the opposite in that contracts unjust per se are not binding as a matter of fact and of law.

Lysander Spooner’s Sixth rule for interpreting law as he put forth in “The unconstitutionality of slavery is as follows”

“A sixth rule of interpretation, and a very important, inflexible, and universal one, applicable to contracts, is, that a contract must never, if it be possible to avoid it, be so construed, as that any one of the parties to it, assuming him to understand his rights, and to be of competent mental capacity to make obligatory* contracts, may not reasonably be presumed to have consented to it”

His last principle is “We are never unnecessarily to impute to an instrument any intention whatever which it would be unnatural for either reasonable or honest men to entertain.”

The arbitration clause should then only be applied to disputes arising out of that contract. To apply universally to all disputes or torts between the parties would be as such to make an employee a slave.

A tort by definition is not a contract dispute, and cannot by any mean be justly interpreted to imply protection toward inherently right-violating actions for the two reasons I have mentioned above.

To do t with thso would turn anybody signing a contract with and arbitration clause into a slave, and for a person to create a contrace intent of shielding himself from punishment of inherently criminal actions is something no honest man would need or want.

Voluntaryist and more specifically proprietarian and customary law anarchists do not propose that contracts could possible be binding if they are in violation of justice. To imply that they do is to drop the entire context and theory of voluntarism. And the context of current law courts. Current law courts are heavily dominated and biased towards corporations, especially those in the military-industrial complex with friends and bribes in high places. Voluntaryist theory also suggests courts issuing unjust decisions would be liable for the costs of appeal, and a court which took four years to finally recognize something which was immediately obvious under almost any conception of justice would itself be guilty of an injustice and subject to reparation payments.