or: How limitation is defined
or: The 2-dimensional plane of the control system
The idea of laws in the objective reality metaparadigm is divided into at least two distinct types (changeable/breakable/ephemeral and unchangeable/unbreakable/fundamental):
- the system of rules that a particular country or community recognizes as regulating the actions of its members and may enforce by the imposition of penalties. ["they were taken to court for breaking the law"]
- a statement of fact, deduced from observation, to the effect that a particular natural or scientific phenomenon always occurs if certain conditions are present. ["the second law of thermodynamics"]
These refer to the man-made laws of a society (a "state" or smaller or larger grouping) created by people composing the "governing body" of such grouping, and to the apparently-unchanging laws of physics empirically observed by the scientific enterprise of epistemological enquiry by the human intellect.
Types of laws
In the subjective reality metaparadigm, on the other hand, at least four distinct types of laws are worth distinguishing:
- Laws of Creation
- Laws of physics / local strong parameters
- Natural Law / Universal Law
- Man-made law / legislation
1) Laws of Creation
According to Bashar, the only real "Laws with a capital L" that exist are the 5 Laws of Creation, which describe the structure/framework of existence in the (multidimensional model of the) subjective reality metaparadigm. These five unchangeable Laws are:
- You exist. (Can't change that.) [Nondual subjective reality]
- Everything is here and now. [Simultaneity]
- The One is the all, and the all are the One. [Holographic nonlocality]
- What you put out is what you get back. [Law of Attraction, or "like vibration to like vibration"]
- Change is the only constant, and everything changes, except the first 4 Laws.
[...] but five is the number of humanity itself, symbolically speaking. And if you're going to look at the idea of "laws" — and of course, as we have said, by laws, we mean with a capital L, not the idea of "the laws of physics", which are really just local conditions, because they don't apply everywhere — they can in that sense be changed, here and there. But when we say "Laws" we mean things that are true for everyone, everywhere, every dimension, throughout all of existence, and that they can not be changed, because these laws are actually the description of the structure of existence itself, the nature of existence itself, and thus can never change. That's what we mean when we say "Laws". [...]
2) Laws of physics
In the subjective reality metaparadigm, the Laws of Creation supersede the so-called "laws of physics", or "physical laws", seeing that the very idea of such laws is based on the assumption that there are unchanging constants in nature. It is the so-called constants that define the "laws" of physics, so if they are not really constants, then the "laws" of physics are not unchanging laws but rather tendencies or, as pioneering dogma-busting scientist Rupert Sheldrake calls them, habits. Alan Watts brilliantly explains how this idea we have of unchanging "laws" is based on our dualistic understanding of causality:
Alan Watts - The Notion Of Causality
The absolutist (reductionist) notions of the objective reality metaparadigm were shown to be bogus in 1931 by mathematical logician Kurt Gödel's incompleteness theorems — which the psychedelic philosopher Terence McKenna called "maybe the most important intellectual step taken in the 20th Century".
According to Wikipedia, "currently there are 26 known fundamental dimensionless physical constants". In his book Just Six Numbers: The Deep Forces That Shape the Universe (1999), cosmologist and astrophysicist Martin Rees reduces this to as little as 6 constants that need to be defined to derive the rest of the laws of physics as they are defined in the objective reality metaparadigm.
A physical law or scientific law "is a theoretical principle deduced from particular facts, applicable to a defined group or class of phenomena, and expressible by the statement that a particular phenomenon always occurs if certain conditions be present." Physical laws are typically conclusions based on repeated scientific experiments and observations over many years and which have become accepted universally within the scientific community. The production of a summary description of our environment in the form of such laws is a fundamental aim of science. These terms are not used the same way by all authors.
The distinction between natural law in the political-legal sense and law of nature or physical law in the scientific sense is a modern one, both concepts being equally derived from physis, the Greek word (translated into Latin as natura) for nature.
How can these so-called physical laws "have become accepted universally within the scientific community", when the scientific community is not paying any attention to (and even nescient/ignorant of the existence of) any scientists beyond the Earth, such as Bashar? They also ignore and marginalize any scientists that step out of the pre-conceived notions (dogmatic assumptions) of mainstream science, so it's not really even planetarily accepted by the scientific community.
How could natural law be seen in a "political-legal sense", when by definition natural law is natural and political-legal laws are not?
3) Natural Law
Natural Law logically defines moral behavior (morality). It is obvious and simple once understood, as Mark Passio most eloquently elucidates. In the objective reality metaparadigm, the idea is that since no assumptions are required, Natural Law is a real, empirical law (the only real law), which supersedes man-made law. In the subjective reality metaparadigm, this changes only slightly, in the sense that the idea of Natural Law is easily seen to be sufficiently "true enough" to be regarded as an objective rule — in the same way as arithmetic.
Wikipedia explains natural law this way:
Natural law, or the law of nature (Latin: lex naturalis; ius naturale), is a system of law that is determined by nature, and so is universal. Classically, natural law refers to the use of reason to analyze human nature — both social and personal — and deduce binding rules of moral behavior from it. Natural law is often contrasted with the positive law of a given political community, society, or state. In legal theory, on the other hand, the interpretation of positive law requires some reference to natural law. On this understanding of natural law, natural law can be invoked to criticize judicial decisions about what the law says but not to criticize the best interpretation of the law itself. Some scholars use natural law synonymously with natural justice or natural right (Latin ius naturale), while others distinguish between natural law and natural right.
Although natural law is often conflated with common law, the two are distinct in that natural law is a view that certain rights or values are inherent in or universally cognizable by virtue of human reason or human nature, while common law is the legal tradition whereby certain rights or values are legally cognizable by virtue of judicial recognition or articulation. Natural law theories have, however, exercised a profound influence on the development of English common law,[full citation needed] and have featured greatly in the philosophies of Thomas Aquinas, Francisco Suárez, Richard Hooker, Thomas Hobbes, Hugo Grotius, Samuel von Pufendorf, John Locke, Francis Hutcheson, Jean Jacques Burlamaqui, and Emmerich de Vattel. Because of the intersection between natural law and natural rights, it has been cited as a component in the United States Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States, as well as in the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen. Declarationism states that the founding of the United States is based on Natural law.
Natural Law and consent of the governed (John Locke) are the Foundation of the American Declaration of Independence, Constitution and Bill of Rights. (See "Laws of Nature" First Paragraph Declaration of Independence) Consent of the Governed, derived from the John Locke's Natural Law Social Contract, replaced the Old World Governance Doctrine of the Divine Right of Kings.
The idea that there is "consent of the governed" — the replacement for the idea of the "divine right of kings" — is a core justification underlying the belief in the legitimacy of "authority". People who are thus believed to be vested with "authority" then create man-made laws (legislation) which may or may not be in harmony with Natural Law in its true understanding.
Another way of expressing Natural Law in its simplest formulation is the idea of Universal Law, which is simply the recognition of self-ownership:
Universal Law trumps all others.
- No man or woman, in or out of government shall initiate force, threat of force or fraud against my life and property and, any and all contracts I am a party to, not giving full disclosure to me, whether signed by me or not, are void at my discretion.
- I may use force in self-defense against anyone that violates Law 1.
- There shall be no exceptions to Law 1 and 2.
Larken Rose explains why "you either own yourself, or you are owned by the ruling class", and how the belief in government/authority is equivalent to the belief that one does not own oneself:
THE VIDEO THAT WILL CHANGE YOUR LIFE
... if you are a statist (a believer in the government fantasy).
... because if the people in power can convince you that your only recourse, the only civilized approach for you to take, is begging and petitioning and whining, you're doomed. If that's all that's inside your narrow view of what you can accomplish in the world, you don't accomplish anything, the slavemasters are thrilled to death, [and] you throw away all your time, all your effort, all your money into something that will accomplish exactly nothing.
The word sovereign derives from the Latin adverb super ("above") and the noun regnum (rulership; control). Thus, "sovereign" means "one who is above the rulership or control of another" — i.e. someone who is not a subject or a slave.
One is either sovereign or governed:
The word sovereignty implies self-governance. A sovereign does not have a government external to himself. Meaning that we shouldn't care about who's in what office or not in what office, or whether it's a de jure government, or a de facto government — they're all irrelevant because sovereign people are 100% responsible for their own existence — and I'm not saying they don't work together, I'm saying that they are whole people that have taken the burden of their existence off the rest of the planet. That's sovereignty.
Most people think of sovereignty as being synonymous with national sovereignty, when in reality, real sovereignty could by definition only ever be individual sovereignty — even though (governance by) national sovereignty generally confers or implies more freedom than (being governed by proxy by) a bureaucratic superstate structure such as the Soviet Union or the European Union (or even the United States).
The end goal of the control system would naturally be a global centralized superstate of superstates, whereby individual human beings are ultimately governed (controlled) by a proxy some 2 or 3 times removed from the "representatives" they are "democratically electing" within their nation-states.
We have to keep in mind that national sovereignty is not fundamentally opposed to the idea of a global system, because, again, it's a question of if subsuming your individual rights [and] identity into a collective, once they do that at the nation-state level, they can do that at the regional level; once they do that at the regional level it goes to the global level. If the centralization of control is the ultimate end goal of all of this, then decentralization has to be the key. And decentralizing from regional to national is part of that process; then national to local, and then local to individual. At the end of the day it has to be about individual sovereignty.
Not only are we decentralizing political power, a process put in full swing by the victory of Brexit in June 2016, we are also decentralizing monetary power, to which is following other forms of technological decentralization such as decentralized autonomous organizations (DAOs).
Mark Passio on Natural Law
A few Natural Law slides by researcher Mark Passio:
Passio figured this out within the objective reality metaparadigm — i.e. under the ontological assumption that reality exists objectively, outside of self. Within the subjective reality metaparadigm we observe that, while the difference between Right and Wrong is not truly objective in the sense that it is subject to change (5th Law of Creation), it is as sufficiently true as arithmetic and an essential principle that all civilized people agree with and which is actually synonymous with the idea of common sense. As Chris Lyspooner says, "let he who asserts that Government may do that which the individual may not assume the onus of proof and demonstrate his contention." (Notice how the word "assume" is used here subjectively, rather than in the objective sense of assumptions that have to be made to contend that reality exists objectively or to legitimize the belief in "authority".)
An order follower is a person who does what someone else commands them to do, and who has therefore attempted to abdicate their free will and their personal responsibility for choosing their own actions, based upon correct determination of the morality or immorality of a particular behavior. That is the definition of what an order follower is and does.
As Mark Passio logically demonstrates in the following presentation, the root cause of almost all evil in our world lie in the actions of the order-followers, not the order-givers (i.e. people believed to be vested with "authority"). His style is as direct as Bashar's, and for that reason Passio prefaces the whole presentation with this:
Be consciously aware of any impulses that you may have to reject the information presented during this presentation, solely based upon your initial emotional response to what you are hearing — because you may be angered, because you may get upset, by some of the things I'm about to say. Be aware that it is a logical fallacy to try to judge the truthfulness of any given information just based upon how you feel when you first hear or see it.
Mark Passio - The Cult of Ultimate Evil (Free Your Mind 3 Conference 2015)
[Published on Sep 26, 2015] Mark Passio's presentation at FYM3, titled: The Cult of Ultimate Evil - Order-Followers & The Destruction Of The Sacred Feminine
Rights and Wrongs
As Passio explains, a Right is simply an action that causes no harm. A Wrong is an action that causes harm to another sentient being. (Or, at least, to another human being — since the argument can be made that ants, bacteria, etc are sentient.)
If there is no harm caused by an action, the action is by definition a Right; if there is harm caused by an action, unless done in response to an initiated harmful action (attack/aggression/violence), it is by definition a Wrong.
The term justification comes from the Latin jus ("right; law"), and facere ("to make; to create"), meaning "to create a right". Justifying a Wrong action means to create the Wrong action to be a Right action, by using the excuse of "just following orders" or "just obeying the law".
You assist an evil system most effectively by obeying its orders and decrees. An evil system never deserves such allegiance. Allegiance to it means partaking of the evil. A good person will resist an evil system with his or her whole soul.
Dharma as the recognition of Natural Law
In the major Eastern philosophies/faiths, specifically Indian religions ("also termed as Dharmic faiths or religions", which include Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism and Sikhism), the concept of dharma is central to these cultures and yet difficult to appropriately translate to left-brained languages. From Hinduism it has been translated as the "right way of living", from Buddhism as "cosmic law and order", and from Sikhism as "path of righteousness". In Jainism it refers to "the teachings of the Jinas and the body of doctrine pertaining to the purification and moral transformation of human beings".
Do you wish the world were happy? / Then remember day by day, / Just to scatter seeds of kindness / As you pass along the way.
While difficult to translate into (lower-dimensional) Western languages, the concept of Dharma can be thought of as most simply being the recognition of Natural Law. In the context of karma, it is perceived that actions that cause harm generate negative karma, while actions that help others, if performed out of self-interest (service-to-self-motivated), generate positive karma. The end of suffering occurs when returning to the center (i.e. when the observer is standing in the neutral balance point in the center of the polarity), acting for the good of the whole and defining experience only in neutral/positive terms, from which thus very little or no karma is generated, and which is therefore aligned with the natural law, the dharma, the service-to-others right-brained heart-centered state of consciousness.
Now as a man is like this or like that, according as he acts and according as he behaves, so will he be; a man of good acts will become good, a man of bad acts, bad; he becomes pure by pure deeds, bad by bad deeds;
And here they say that a person consists of desires, and as is his desire, so is his will; and as is his will, so is his deed; and whatever deed he does, that he will reap.
The Sanskrit antonym of Dharma is Adharma, which means "that which is not in accord with the Dharma", for which connotations include unnaturalness, wrongness, evil, immorality, wickedness, or vice.
Another related term is Ahimsa — hiṃsā meaning "injury or harm" in Sanskrit; with "a-hiṃsā being the opposite of this, i.e. "cause no injury, do no harm" — which "is also referred to as nonviolence, and it applies to all living beings - including all animals - according to many Indian religions."
4) Man-made law
Sin lies only in hurting others unnecessarily. All other "sins" are invented nonsense.
Every law they pass is a command, backed by a threat of violence.
A person who was demoralized is unable to assess true information — the facts tell nothing to him. Even if I shower him with information, with authentic truth, with documents, with pictures, he will refuse to believe it, despite of the abundance of information. No one is able to come to sensible conclusions in the interest of defending themselves, their families, their community, and their country. Even if you expose them to authentic information, you still cannot change the basic perception and the logical behavior.
Misunderstanding, or being unaware of, Natural Law and the natural Rights and Wrongs that it logically defines, one may be operating under the assumption that a piece of paper, somewhere, penned by someone, somewhere, claiming to act in one's name, can supersede Natural Law and thereby revoke a natural Right or turn a natural Wrong into a Right.
The idea that man-made laws that protect individuals against attackers are a reasonable and benevolent tool is contradicted by the fact that to enforce them, violence must be initiated. As Frédéric Bastiat summarized it, "the law is guilty of the evils it is supposed to punish".
Of all ideas perceived as "authoritative", few are more pervasively so than the idea of a "constitution" that grants or guarantees or protects the "human rights" of humans. As Larken Rose most eloquently elucidates, the premise that a piece of paper, penned by someone somewhere for any reason, can dictate what rights one has is absurd (even if not written centuries ago by men who "owned" slaves):
I'm Allowed to Rob You!
Want to see a piece of paper that gives me the RIGHT to rob you? You don't believe there is such a thing? Are you SURE you don't believe it?
Certainly, it can be recognized that the U.S. Constitution has served a valuable role of limiting the power of (the people calling themselves) "the state" in this particular geographical area, its limitative rules having been slowly eroded/ignored over time — transforming the (relatively benevolently-intended and progressive at the time) idea of a hardcoded limited "government" or "state" into the largest empire in modern history.
For a clear definition, let's turn to Wikipedia's definition of the idea of a constitution:
A constitution is a set of fundamental principles or established precedents according to which a state or other organization is governed. These rules together make up, i.e. constitute, what the entity is. When these principles are written down into a single document or set of legal documents, those documents may be said to embody a written constitution; if they are written down in a single comprehensive document, it is said to embody a codified constitution.
Constitutions concern different levels of organizations, from sovereign states to companies and unincorporated associations. A treaty which establishes an international organization is also its constitution, in that it would define how that organization is constituted. Within states, a constitution defines the principles upon which the state is based, the procedure in which laws are made and by whom. Some constitutions, especially codified constitutions, also act as limiters of state power, by establishing lines which a state's rulers cannot cross, such as fundamental rights. An example is the constitution of the United States of America.
The Constitution of India is the longest written constitution of any sovereign country in the world, containing 444 articles in 22 parts, 12 schedules and 118 amendments, with 117,369 words in its English-language translation, while the United States Constitution is the shortest written constitution, containing seven articles and 27 amendments, and a total of 4,400 words.
So a constitution sets the parameters of acceptable (statist/involuntaryist) behavior that members of "a state or other organization" are not allowed to exceed, placing thus well-defined limitations on (the expansion of) "state" power. But what exactly is a "state"?
States and nation states
Wikipedia's definition of the idea of a "state":
A state is an organized political community living under a single system of government. Speakers of American English often use state and government as synonyms, with both words referring to an organized political group that exercises authority over a particular territory. States may or may not be sovereign. For instance, federated states that are members of a federal union have only partial sovereignty, but are, nonetheless, states. Some states are subject to external sovereignty or hegemony where ultimate sovereignty lies in another state. The term "state" can also refer to the secular branches of government within a state, often as a manner of contrasting them with churches and civilian institutions.
Many human societies have been governed by states for millennia, but many have been stateless societies. The first states arose about 5,500 years ago in conjunction with the rapid growth of urban centers, the invention of writing, and the codification of new forms of religion. Over time a variety of different forms developed, employing a variety of justifications for their existence (such as divine right, the theory of the social contract, etc.). In the 21st century the modern nation-state is the predominant form of state to which people are subject.
The reason for calling "an organized political group that exercises authority over a particular territory" a "state" is revealed by the original, general, meaning of the word state, which simply means "the particular condition that someone or something is in at a specific time." By creating and normalizing this word sense, the control system conflated the idea of a ruling class with "the particular condition that [humans are] in at [the present moment]", so that by today the "states" are perceived as representing the state of human organization — the (natural, default) means by which humans organize on a collective level.
Notice also the distortion of the meaning of sovereignty. As researcher Kurt Kallenbach defined above, being sovereign is the opposite of being governed; the state of sovereignty actually means the absence of the state of slavery. The distortion created by the people who believe they have the "right to govern" (i.e. the right to initiate violence) creates the illusion that the state of slavery is axiomatic and intrinsic, and that sovereignty is the absence of slavemasters of the slavemasters. Thus, "an organized political group that exercises authority over a particular territory" is called "sovereign" if they are not forced to obey some other, more powerful (or more willing to use greater degrees of violence), "organized political group that exercises authority over a particular territory" somewhere outside the territory the lesser slavemasters (believe they) have gained control over.
To further distort the real nature of "states"/"governments", the term nation state was created:
A nation state is a geographical area that can be identified as deriving its political legitimacy from serving as a sovereign nation. A state is a political and geopolitical entity, while a nation is a cultural and ethnic one. The term "nation state" implies that the two coincide, but "nation state" formation can take place at different times in different parts of the world.
The concept of a nation state can be compared and contrasted with that of the multinational state, city state, empire, confederation, and other state formations with which it may overlap. The key distinction is the identification of a people with a polity in the "nation state."
And that "key distinction" — "the identification of a people with a polity" — is achieved by means of the illusion of choice, which is embodied in the myth known as democracy.
The word "geopolitical" is by itself another distortion — one which associates the idea of "politics" with the land people are standing on — with the Earth itself — creating thus the illusion or unconscious impression that "politics" is axiomatic and intrinsic.
A "sovereign nation" is another of these confusing terms, because sovereigns (i.e. individuals or groups of individuals) do not have the right to delegate rights they themselves do not have, such as the right to initiate violence — which is the act of enforcing authority, which is what "exercis[ing] authority over a particular territory" is.
Another of these suspect terms is polity:
A polity is a state or one of its subordinate civil authorities, such as a province, prefecture, county, municipality, city, or district. It is generally understood to mean a geographic area with a corresponding government. Thomas Hobbes considered bodies politic in this sense in Leviathan. In previous centuries, body politic was also understood to mean "the physical person of the sovereign:" emperor, king or dictator in monarchies and despotisms, and the electorate in republics. In present times, it may also refer to representation of a group, such as ones drawn along ethnic or gender lines. Cabinets in liberal democracies are chosen to represent the body politic.
Those "cabinets" not having been in any way, shape, or form, chosen or "elected" to such "positions of power" by the people whom they supposedly represent — even in "direct democracies".
"Jurisdiction" is the invention of the rules that the "state" violently enforces over the territory it has gained control over. The members of the "state" then give these territories (geographical areas) names such as "United Kingdom", "People's Republic of China", "United States of America", "Russian Federation", "Kingdom of Spain", "Saudi Arabia", "Islamic Republic of Iran", etc, with the intention of making it appear as if they really truly are legitimately representing the will and desires of the people whom they (claim to) rule, and guard the imaginary borders that separate their "jurisdiction" from the "jurisdiction" of other such gangs (warlords) while cultivating the artificial distinction of "us" and "them" to normalize the (otherwise obviously absurd) idea.
For contrast, Wikipedia has the following definition of the idea of jurisdiction:
This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (July 2013)
Jurisdiction (from the Latin ius, iuris meaning "law" and dicere meaning "to speak") is the practical authority to interpret and apply the law, or to govern and legislate. It is granted to a formally constituted legal body, such as a court, or to a political leader. It grants authority to deal with and make pronouncements on legal matters and, by implication, to administer justice. Jurisdiction has defined areas of responsibility, e.g. Michigan tax law. Areas of jurisdiction apply to local, state, and federal levels, e.g. the court has jurisdiction to apply federal law.
Colloquially it is used to refer to the geographical area to which such authority applies, e.g. the court has jurisdiction over all of Colorado. The legal term refers only to the granted authority, not to a geographical area.
Jurisdiction draws its substance from public international law, conflict of laws, constitutional law, and the powers of the executive and legislative branches of government to allocate resources to best serve the needs of its native society.
Wikipedia speaks of jurisdiction "granting authority", without specifying who it is that grants it, deferring the question to the implicit legitimacy of various types of man-made "law" systems and "government".
The media refers to the supposed "lawmakers" — members of a congress or parliament — who "pass laws" that are supposedly axiomatically binding to anyone living within the "jurisdiction" over which the "lawmakers" have "authority" (i.e. have gained control over by means of violence).
Government means the group that has the right — the authority — to rule us, and that is something we imagine. And it exists only because we imagine it. We imagine into existence "law makers". There is no such thing as a lawmaker. There are lunatics in Washington who make up commands, and we hallucinate that those commands are binding on us. There are lunatics in Washington who make up demands, and say "you have to give us money, if you do this or this or this", and we hallucinate that they are something other than thugs and thieves. They're not. The "authority" exists only in the eyes of the beholder.
Of course, it can be argued that if one has voted for one political party or another to "represent" them (and others by force!), then the voter has in some sense agreed that such commands are indeed binding on them — but the belief that they are also binding on those human beings who didn't vote or agree with the premise of being ruled by another, is premised in nothing but mind control in the form of deception by memetic repetition.
The energy physics of our "laws"
Even with the presumption of good intentionality by the part of "lawmakers", if man-made "laws" are created out of fear (as they all are), they will always be more detrimental than serving. Abraham-Hicks speaks about our man-made "laws":
We do not think that you are being deliberately held back; it is all about economics. But, if we were standing in your physical shoes we would not worry about that. In other words, if drugs were legalized, there would be so much less resistance around so many things. But, there are a lot of people that would use it as a reason to be more fearful and so there would be more resistance around other things, and, we've noticed, and we know that you have too, that the laws that are in place usually only keep people in line who had no real inclination to do it anyway. [...] There are so many laws, and rules, and regulations, and every one of them made by those who are outside the vortex when they make them — every one of them. Every one of them trying to protect, and so in the making of them, and then the enforcing of them, or even in the defying of them, or the rebellion of them — and that pushing against is still an outside the vortex experience. Those who break the laws are not necessarily outside the vortex, unless they are rebelling against the laws themselves, you see.
Hence, it's important to understand that it's not about rebelling against the idea of man-made laws themselves under the belief that they are indeed axiomatically binding, but to understand the reasons why they in fact cannot possibly be binding in the first place — i.e. the idea of Natural Law, also known as Universal Law, the recognition of individual sovereignty.
Crimes and wrongs
It is not that the man-made law system doesn't recognize the difference between morally Wrong actions and actions which are prohibited by law, because lawyers use Latin terms to distinguish two main types of crime:
- Malum in se: Morally evil in itself (murder, theft, assault)
- Mala prohibita: Wrongs prohibited by law (drugs, prostitution, downloading copyrighted media...)
Those "wrongs" being arbitrarily designated as such by the whim of people who believe that they have somehow acquired the right to rule over other beings, which is actually malum in se, because it implies assault (initiation of violence) in order to enforce those whims/"laws" when ignored/"broken" by those who are supposedly "ruled".
Mens rea & actus reus
Another distinction that is made is the differentiation of the act itself and the intentionality behind the act:
Mens rea (Latin for "the guilty mind"), in criminal law, is viewed as one of the necessary elements of some crimes. The standard common law test of criminal liability is usually expressed in the Latin phrase, actus reus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea, which means "the act is not culpable unless the mind is guilty". Thus, in jurisdictions with due process, there must be an actus reus, or "guilty act", accompanied by some level of mens rea to constitute the crime with which the defendant is charged (see the technical requirement of concurrence). As a general rule, criminal liability does not attach to a person who merely acted with the absence of mental fault. The exception is strict liability crimes.
In civil law, it is usually not necessary to prove a subjective mental element to establish liability for breach of contract or tort, for example. However, if a tort is intentionally committed or a contract is intentionally breached, such intent may increase the scope of liability as well as the measure of damages payable to the plaintiff.
Therefore, mens rea refers to the mental element of the offence that accompanies the actus reus. In some jurisdictions, the terms mens rea and actus reus have been replaced by alternative terminology. In Australia, for example, the elements of the federal offenses are now designated as "fault elements" or "mental elements" (mens rea) and "physical elements" or "external elements" (actus reus). This terminology was adopted to replace the obscurity of the Latin terms with simple and accurate phrasing.
Actus reus, sometimes called the external element or the objective element of a crime, is the Latin term for the "guilty act" which, when proved beyond a reasonable doubt in combination with the mens rea, "guilty mind", produces criminal liability in the common law-based criminal law jurisdictions of Canada, Australia, India, Pakistan, South Africa, New Zealand, England and Wales, Colombia, Ghana, Ireland, Israel and the United States of America. In the United States of America, some crimes also require proof of an attendant circumstance.
Perhaps the best example highlighting the relevance of such distinction is the distinction between murder and manslaughter:
Murder is the killing of another human being without justification or valid excuse, and it is especially the unlawful killing of another human being with malice aforethought. This state of mind may, depending upon the jurisdiction, distinguish murder from other forms of unlawful homicide, such as manslaughter.
Manslaughter is a legal term for the killing of a human being, in a manner considered by law as less culpable than murder. The distinction between murder and manslaughter is sometimes said to have first been made by the Ancient Athenian lawmaker Draco in the 7th century B.C.E.
The definition of manslaughter differs among legal jurisdictions.
This is a tricky distinction because one can work to make it seem as if a murder was not deliberate ("man's laughter"), even as a plausible fallback scenario in case the main intended scenario (e.g. suicide or accident) doesn't hold up to scrutiny. Interestingly, this Draco "lawmaker" in the birthplace of "democracy" wasn't precisely known to have been motivated by a desire for justice and freedom:
Draco (/ˈdreɪkoʊ/; Greek: Δράκων, Drakōn; fl. c. 7th century BC) was the first legislator of Athens in Ancient Greece. He replaced the prevailing system of oral law and blood feud by a written code to be enforced only by a court. Draco's written law became known for its harshness, with the adjective "draconian" referring to similarly unforgiving rules or laws.
The laws (θεσμοί - thesmoi) that he laid down were the first written constitution of Athens. [...] The laws, however, were particularly harsh. For example, any debtor whose status was lower than that of his creditor was forced into slavery. The punishment was more lenient for those owing a debt to a member of a lower class. [...] All his laws were repealed by Solon in the early 6th century BC with the exception of the homicide law.
As an interesting side note, is it a coincidence that the man who introduced the idea of "written code to be enforced only by a court" into "democratically"-ruled "jurisdictions" bears the name of what many researchers identify as, or associate with, one of the reptilian extraterrestrial consciousnesses influencing the Earth and humanity?
Color of law
Even beyond the tricky distinction of the determination of a guilty mind (mens rea) behind the guilty act (actus reus), there is the more general idea of "color of law", which Black's Law Dictionary defines as "The appearance or semblance, without the substance, of legal right." Wikipedia says this:
In United States law, the term color of law denotes the "mere semblance of legal right", the "pretense or appearance of" right; hence, an action done under color of law colors (adjusts) the law to the circumstance, yet said apparently legal action contravenes the law. Under color of authority is a legal phrase used in the US indicating that a person is claiming or implying the acts he or she is committing are related to and legitimized by his or her role as an agent of governmental power, especially if the acts are unlawful.
In other words, in many cases/situations/scenarios "the law" is sufficiently vague for an argument of "color of law" to be applied — and if the offender is (perceived to be) an "authority", even moreso.
Anarchist/libertarian free market researcher David Friedman (son of the infamous economist Milton Friedman) shares some interesting ideas regarding how a society, making use of our modern public-key cryptographic technologies, could theoretically have voluntaryist groups acting as "rights enforcement agencies" which "only have the same rights that everybody else has":
Law Without the State | David Friedman
[Published on Jan 17, 2013] David Friedman discusses how private sources can produce more efficient laws than governments, making the case for anarcho-capitalism over government monopoly over law.
These ideas seemingly fit within the framework of the Natural/Universal Law of doing no harm — truly consensual equal-footing agreements of rules we may wish to abide by after being recognized as conducive to a just, anarchist/voluntaryist, collaborative partnership society, similar in nature (but not in technology) to that which existed before the rise of the patriarchical hierarchical authoritarian rulership structures.
Friedman also brilliantly deconstructs the idea of "democracy" within its advocates' own parameters, with what he likes to refer to as "the civics class model of democracy: the simple-minded explanation of why democracy works", which is that "the politicians have to do the right things because if they do the wrong things they'll be voted out". As Friedman notes, "the problem is that for some reason politicians doing the wrong thing never say so", that (as Larken Rose also observes), "nobody runs on the platform of a bad guy". And so for this model of democracy to work, "the voter has to put a lot of time and effort into monitoring what his congressman is doing and what he should be doing", which is "not a trivial problem" because, given the influence of a single vote (out of millions of votes), it is not logically worth spending such time and effort.
Crypto 2.0 project BitNation has already been created to advance this idea:
BITNATION is a decentralized, open-source movement, powered by the Bitcoin blockchain 2.0 technology, in an attempt to foster a peer-to-peer voluntary governance system, rather than the current ‘top-down’, ‘one-size-fits-all’ model, restrained by the current nation-state-engineered geographical apartheid, where your quality of life is defined by where you were arbitrarily born.
We’re a holacratic organization and we strive to become a fully functional Decentralized Autonomous Organization (DAO). This means that there are no old-school management structures or barriers to entry. Anyone can join or create a team (‘holon’), whether for-profit or nonprofit, and benefit from the support and technological infrastructure of the BITNATION community.
Holarchy vs. hierarchy (holacracy vs. government)
A holacratic organization is in a sense the opposite of a hierarchical one, in which each participating individual is honored to the same extent:
A holarchy, in the terminology of Arthur Koestler, is a connection between holons, where a holon is both a part and a whole. The term was coined in Koestler's 1967 book The Ghost in the Machine. The term, spelled holoarchy, is also used extensively by American philosopher and writer Ken Wilber.
Holarchy is commonly referred to as a form of hierarchy; however, hierarchy, by its definition, has both an absolute top and bottom. But this is not logically possible in a holon, as it is both a whole and a part. The "hierarchical relationship" between holons at different levels can just as meaningfully be described with terms like "in and out", as they can with "up and down" or "left and right"; perhaps more generally, one can say that holons at one level are "made up of, or make up" the holons or parts of another level. This can be demonstrated in the holarchic relationship (subatomic particles ↔ atoms ↔ molecules ↔ macromolecules ↔ organelles ↔ cells ↔ tissues ↔ organs ↔ organisms ↔ communities ↔ societies) where each holon is a "level" of organization, and all are ultimately descriptive of the same set (e.g., a particular collection of matter). The top can be a bottom, a bottom can be a top, and, like a fractal, the patterns evident at one level can be similar to those at another.
David Spangler uses the term in a different meaning: "In a hierarchy, participants can be compared and evaluated on the basis of position, rank, relative power, seniority, and the like. But in a holarchy each person’s value comes from his or her individuality and uniqueness and the capacity to engage and interact with others to make the fruits of that uniqueness available."
An organizational governance based on holarchy has been called a holacracy:
Holacracy is a specific social technology or system of organizational governance developed by HolacracyOne, LLC in which authority and decision-making are distributed throughout a holarchy of self-organizing teams rather than being vested in a management hierarchy. Holacracy has been adopted in for-profit and non-profit organizations in Australia, France, Germany, New Zealand, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and the United States.
These ideas, combined with the decentralization process, are the systems we need that will prove unstoppable to the control system, which is entirely based on centralized hierarchical authoritarian/dominance (mind) control.
All 4 types of laws can be understood by some months of study, even the 4th type. Once one truly understands the man-made law system of the control system, and especially if one can sense the spirit-level contractual causal dynamics, one can correctly handle any situation of polite interaction with law enforcers. Researcher Dean Clifford demonstrates:
Dean Clifford · Confronts Commerce Law Enforcers with Common Law
Dean doesn't pay Income or property Taxes, he doesn't drive with a license, insurance or with government plates. His beliefs stem from that 95% of what Government is doing is absolute rubbish and he does not consent to be governed by any of their bureaucrats.
On November 26th he was abducted at one of his seminars on private property where no warrant was presented.
Dean Clifford's Kidnapping by Goons with No Warrant, No Identification and No Cause of Action. He was not Arrested, He was taken with No explanation or justified reason by goons that were heavily armed.
Dean Clifford's 90 Minute Unlawful Detainment and Car Theft
Researchers CGP Grey, Josie the Outlaw, and Larken Rose explain the hidden power of a jury:
The Law You Won't Be Told
CGP Grey explains Jury Nullification
The True Duty of a Jury - Jury Nullification - Josie the Outlaw
When you sit on a jury you have the right to judge the facts of the case, the law itself and if the law is being misapplied. If you think that the defendant has harmed no one or has not damaged any property, or even if you think its a bad law, you can vote your conscience. If there is no victim, there is no crime. One person can hang a jury by voting not guilty.
If you find yourself getting roped into "jury duty," make sure you know what your most important duty is.
Jury Nullification: Anarchy in Action! (Larken Rose)
For all the times I've bashed "political action," there is one thing that almost looks like "working within the system" that I actually agree with, precisely because it's fundamentally an anti-authoritarian act.
Unjust laws exist; shall we be content to obey them, or shall we endeavour to amend them, and obey them until we have succeeded, or shall we transgress them at once? Men generally, under such a government as this, think that they ought to wait until they have persuaded the majority to alter them. They think that, if they should resist, the remedy would be worse than the evil. But it is the fault of the government itself that the remedy is worse than the evil. It makes it worse. Why is it not more apt to anticipate and provide for reform? Why does it not cherish its wise minority? Why does it cry and resist before it is hurt? Why does it not encourage its citizens to be on the alert to point out its faults, and do better than it would have them?
The Natural Liberty of man is to be free from any superior power on Earth, and not to be under the will or legislative authority of Man, but only to have the Law of Nature for his rule.
Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws.
The state calls its own violence law, but that of the individual crime.
Cowardice asks the question: "Is it safe"? Expediency asks the question: "Is it politic"? Vanity asks the question: "Is it popular?" But conscience asks the question: "Is it right?" And there comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular but one must take it because one's conscience tells one what is right.
Language furnishes the best proof that a law accepted by a community is a thing that is tolerated and not a rule to which all freely consent.
If you talk to a man in a language he understands, that goes to his head. If you talk to him in his language, that goes to his heart.
Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the arc of the covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment. I knew that age well; I belonged to it, and labored with it. It deserved well of its country. It was very like the present, but without the experience of the present; and forty years of experience in government is worth a century of book-reading; and this they would say themselves, were they to rise from the dead. I am certainly not an advocate for frequent and untried changes in laws and constitutions. I think moderate imperfections had better be borne with; because, when once known, we accommodate ourselves to them, and find practical means of correcting their ill effects. But I know also, that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.
That which is good for all and any one, for whomsoever - that is good for me. What I hold good for self, I should for all. Only Law Universal, is true Law.
Mankind's true moral test, its fundamental test (which lies deeply buried from view), consists of its attitude towards those who are at its mercy: animals. And in this respect mankind has suffered a fundamental debacle, a debacle so fundamental that all others stem from it.