A lawless society

A lawless society is a depressing place to live because it's a place completely without law. And while going lawless might be appealing, we aren't talking about an end to laws requiring you to wear bicycle helmets or drink small sodas. Not even laws ordering you to pay recycle, pay taxes and join up during a war. These are laws, but they're also ordinances, commands and compulsions. They are not really any different from your parents telling you to wash behind your ears or a mugger ordering you to give him your money. They might be right or wrong, but they aren't law.

Law exists apart from what a group of people at any given time want you to do. That is why the aged nature of the United States Constitution is a strength. The farther away we travel from 1788, the less that the foibles and frailties of the Framers affect us. The transitory human things fall away leaving only the essence of law.

A Bill of Rights drafted today would look very different than it did back then. Not only would there be no Second Amendment, but most of the others would read dramatically different. There would be few severe restrictions on government power. Nor would there be unlimited Freedom of Speech. The entire thing would run a few thousand pages and would be filled with all sorts of escape clauses, which when added together would render the whole thing meaningless.

Take for example the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, which includes dozens of new rights, such as the right of asylum, the right to environmental protection and consumer protection, and the right to social security, in addition to the more basic rights familiar to Americans, but it comes with a simple addendum.

"Any limitation on the exercise of the rights and freedoms recognised by this Charter must be provided for by law and respect the essence of those rights and freedoms. Subject to the principle of proportionality, limitations may be made only if they are necessary and genuinely meet objectives of general interest recognised by the Union or the need to protect the rights and freedoms of others."

Which is to say there is freedom of speech, only until a compelling argument can be made why banning someone's freedom of speech will help protect the general interests of the European Union or the rights of others to have environmental protection and social security.

That is the essence of a lawless society, which is to say that there are oodles and oodles of law, but it's merely a complicated way for those in power to enforce their will on others. If you want to force people to do something, all you need to do is study enough clauses, lay out your reasoning and it's done.

It's law in the same sense that a mugger putting a gun to your head is law. He has a gun and he makes the laws. The laws don't apply to him. They don't apply in any larger universal fashion. The mugger can choose to suspend any laws at his whim, because he has a gun.

The United States has drifted into lawlessness, into laws that are the guns of government. Want to force everyone to buy health insurance? Pass a law. Ignore any questions of legality because legality doesn't matter. If people come out to protest, send out your SEIU thugs to beat them. If you lose your Senate majority, use Reconciliation to pass it. If the Supreme Court threatens to investigate the Constitutionality of the law, threaten the Court.

The only thing separating tactics like these from the mugger on the corner is public interest. Which is to say that the government is playing Robin Hood. It isn't mugging you because it likes the smell of money, but because it wants to help those less fortunate. Robin Hood was rebelling against the illegal authority of the Sheriff of Nottingham. And our government is rebelling against the authority of... the people and the law.

The government is the outlaw, doing what it likes because it must resist all the "powerful interests", the most powerful of them being the Middle Class. The Revolution becomes permanent, with the Reds in power constantly rebelling against the bourgeois capitalists by raising taxes and outlawing soda. Every year, the outlaws swing out of the trees, rob the merchants and ride back to Washington D.C. for a glorious feast over the stolen goods, which they may in some small way share with a few peasants, to secure their support.

This farce can take place under the guise of law, but it represents a lawless society. Law limits power. It limits the power of individuals, institutions and governments. But in a lawless society no limitation on power applies if the power is being applied for the sake of the higher ideals which the society can be said to represent. If those higher ideals involve helping the poor, then every institution can act like Robin Hood. And it's perfectly legal, because there is no law.

In a lawless society, law is a function of emotion. The one who screams the loudest gets his way if he can influence enough people to believe that he has a case. Laws get made from a sense of "rightness" that is entirely a function of emotion. Everyone operates in the egotistical "I feel" mode, sharing and feeling their mutual pain, and passing laws to outlaw anyone from hurting anyone else... unless it is in the interest of preventing pain.

Rights become entirely positive and empathy based. Negative rights become associated with selfishness. Everyone has the right to a thousand benefits, but no one has the right to opt out. Everyone is free to speak their mind, so long as it is an expression of need, rather than a demand to be left alone.

Empathy makes for very bad law, because it isn't law at all. It's a subjective response to the suffering of others. And often those who excel at marketing their suffering aren't suffering at all, while those who are genuinely suffering remain silent. Empathy-based law commodifies pain, but it's empty of justice.

A lawless society is one where those who manipulate empathy gain power. Where temporary outrage substitutes for policy. A video that stirs anger and goes viral matters more than law. Everyone is a muckraker, and everything is a muck of competing narratives because everyone is a victim and everyone is dirty at the same time.

There is no law and so every case, every incident is political, because law is made on an ad hoc basis. One side projects grief, the other side charges cynicism. The side that manipulates the emotions of the crowd most deftly, wins. Every politician is an actor, every debate is a performance and every victory is a chance to gather more spoils.

The idea that there should be one law for all, rather than one law for the sufferers and another for those who aren't suffering, is alien to a society where empathy trumps law. Rather than making it easier for the rich and poor to compete, the rich hobble the middle-class for the benefit of the poor. Rather than outlawing racial discrimination, it's reversed so that it favors those discriminated against. Rather than doing the right thing, the left does the Robin Hood thing, leaping from the tree, looting the society, and writing songs about its own dashing courage.

The government-media complex acts out the empathy narrative. Its reporting has nothing to do with the facts, but everything to do with emotion. A law is bad when it protects the privilege of the opposition, but good when it protects their privilege. The powers of the Senate, the Executive and the Supreme Court are good when they serve their ends, but bad when they serve the ends of their enemy. The blame always goes to one side, the side blocking their agenda.

A society that lives by law can have laws that mean something, but in a lawless society, a law only matters so long as it serves the purpose of those in power. When it doesn't, then it's ignored or tossed aside.

Last week we witnessed Obama playing Robin Hood by casting aside immigration law and transparency to the jubilant cheers of the media, whose fondest wish is for politicians to play Robin Hood, cut all the Gordian Knots and just carry out their agenda without regard for the law. That is what they wanted, that is what they got. But a lawless society cuts both ways and takes the system out of the protection of the law.

Law is impartial. It states absolute principles that apply regardless of faction and position. But in a lawless society, there is no law, only power. The left has ushered in a lawless society, but we will all have to live with the consequences.

Great post.

One very simple example of the US having become a “lawless society” (AKA “A nation of ‘men,’ rather than a nation of ‘laws’” was the whole auto industry takeover/bailout/theft. When you hear it referred to in the media, they talk about how the auto manufacturers were “bailed out.” But that’s simply NOT the case. The bailout was to the UAW union and its bosses. One way or another, the US auto industry would have continued, with Ford becoming the leading manufacturer. Something ignored by EVERYONE was that there used to be MANY auto manufacturers in the US, but they either went out of business, or were consolidated to make new, larger, more vibrant companies. This COULD HAVE happened in the US. However, Obama, his masters, and his minions saw it as an opportunity to break contract and bankruptcy laws, as well as moving government control into areas never seen before (like replacing the CEO of GM with a government hack who admitted he knew nothing about the auto business) and forcing thousands of auto dealers across the country out of business.

Another PERFECT example is Obama ORDERING the executive branch agencies NOT to follow the laws duly passed by congress (like the defense of marriage act and immigration laws).

We have what has ostensibly become an imperial presidency, especially with the slew of “czars” appointed, the recent “recess appointment” which occurred while the senate was still in session, and now Obama’s amnesty proclamation for illegal aliens.

And don’t even get me started on “Fast and Furious” which is so patently an attack by the government on the Constitution of the United States that it makes me ill.

Thanks again, I always look forward to these posts.

Mark

This one is satisfying and delicious. He nails it.

"The United States has drifted into lawlessness, into laws that are the guns of government. Want to force everyone to buy health insurance? Pass a law. Ignore any questions of legality because legality doesn't matter. If people come out to protest, send out your SEIU thugs to beat them. If you lose your Senate majority, use Reconciliation to pass it. If the Supreme Court threatens to investigate the Constitutionality of the law, threaten the Court."
[Exactly!]
"The idea that there should be one law for all, rather than one law for the sufferers and another for those who aren't suffering, is alien to a society where empathy trumps law. Rather than making it easier for the rich and poor to compete, the rich hobble the middle-class for the benefit of the poor. Rather than outlawing racial discrimination, it's reversed so that it favors those discriminated against. Rather than doing the right thing, the left does the Robin Hood thing, leaping from the tree, looting the society, and writing songs about its own dashing courage."
[This same sort of thinking brought us to rolling out the red carpet for muslims not too long after they introduced themselves to America by ramming jets into some of our tall buildings.]

The left has ushered in a lawless society, but we will all have to live with the consequences.

Who are "the left" concerned with power above all else, that have forced this lawlessness upon us?

Socialists. Totalitarians.

The Law Defends Plunder

But it does not always do this. Sometimes the law defends plunder and participates in it. Thus the beneficiaries are spared the shame, danger, and scruple which their acts would otherwise involve. Sometimes the law places the whole apparatus of judges, police, prisons, and gendarmes at the service of the plunderers, and treats the victim — when he defends himself — as a criminal.

This legal plunder may be only an isolated stain among the legislative measures of the people. If so, it is best to wipe it out with a minimum of speeches and denunciations — and in spite of the uproar of the vested interests.

How to Identify Legal Plunder

But how is this legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime.

Then abolish this law without delay, for it is not only an evil itself, but also it is a fertile source for further evils because it invites reprisals. If such a law — which may be an isolated case — is not abolished immediately, it will spread, multiply, and develop into a system.

The person who profits from this law will complain bitterly, defending his acquired rights. He will claim that the state is obligated to protect and encourage his particular industry; that this procedure enriches the state because the protected industry is thus able to spend more and to pay higher wages to the poor workingmen.

Do not listen to this sophistry by vested interests. The acceptance of these arguments will build legal plunder into a whole system. In fact, this has already occurred. The present-day delusion is an attempt to enrich everyone at the expense of everyone else; to make plunder universal under the pretense of organizing it.

Legal Plunder Has Many Names

Now, legal plunder can be committed in an infinite number of ways. Thus we have an infinite number of plans for organizing it: tariffs, protection, benefits, subsidies, encouragements, progressive taxation, public schools, guaranteed jobs, guaranteed profits, minimum wages, a right to relief, a right to the tools of labor, free credit, and so on, and so on. All these plans as a whole — with their common aim of legal plunder — constitute socialism.

Above all, if you wish to be strong, begin by rooting out every particle of socialism that may have crept into your legislation. This will be no light task.

Socialism Is Legal Plunder.

Italicized from "The Law" - Frederic Bastiat 1801-1850

"Law exists apart from what a group of people at any given time want you to do."

We hold from God the gift which includes all others. This gift is life — physical, intellectual, and moral life.

But life cannot maintain itself alone. The Creator of life has entrusted us with the responsibility of preserving, developing, and perfecting it. In order that we may accomplish this, He has provided us with a collection of marvelous faculties. And He has put us in the midst of a variety of natural resources. By the application of our faculties to these natural resources we convert them into products, and use them. This process is necessary in order that life may run its appointed course.

Life, faculties, production — in other words, individuality, liberty, property — this is man. And in spite of the cunning of artful political leaders, these three gifts from God precede all human legislation, and are superior to it. Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.

Italicized from "The Law" - Frederic Bastiat 1801-1850

Identify the lawless. Identify the socialists. Identify the totalitarians.

DEPOPULATE them from the body politic. DEFUND their collectives.

C'mon November

This caught my eye:

We originally had a system intended to protect the rights and property of individuals. Now we have degenerated to a system that protects the interests of the government. I say that this stands equivalent to treason, for it subverts the founding principles of our republic.

When you take a situation of lawlessness, there are two major ways in which law and order may evolve, and after a great period of evolution, these are the two dominant forms of law that exist today in the world.

The first of these is based on the rule of kings and nobility, what is easiest to think of as feudal law, where the noble lord, whoever it is, creates the rules by which all others abide. One system for nobility and one for the peasantry or commoners.

Because nobles are better and (believed to be) more capable than commoners, they determine how this law is enforced, guilt or innocence, and punishments and rewards.

Over time this achieved formality and complexity as Roman Law, which was embraced in “Old Europe”, eventually modernized and adapted as Napoleonic Law, and in use today as the French Civil Code.

It has several elements that are alien to those of us whose culture is different, such as the assumption of guilt, and the lack of a jury of peers.

Things such as these evolved on the different but parallel track of the tribes of Gaul. For them, any warrior was equal to other warriors, and a king had warriors following him because they wanted to.

Thus nobility had no monopoly over the truth, and the only one capable of judging a warrior were other warriors seated to hear his case. Because some are glib of tongue and others are not, a warrior could speak on behalf of or against another warrior, with a powerful warrior to be the judge of fairness until the jury of warriors could reach their decision.

From this evolved Common Law, first moving to England, evolving, then moving to America, where it continued to evolve.

Both of these systems ended lawlessness. But the axioms on which each were founded are very important to every aspect of government and culture in the nations in which they exist.

Importantly, people in one system find it hard to adapt to the “way of doing business” of the other system. Which may explain why England is having such a hard time under the thumb of Brussels.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:LegalSystemsOfTheWorldMap.png

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.