Thecuriousmail’s Weblog

The fiction of the ‘Rule of Law’, and why you must break the law

Posted in Uncategorized by thecuriousmail on June 21, 2017

lady justice

A law has  been defined as an ordinance of reason, for the common good, made for the care of the community, and promulgated.

I say a law must be consistent with reason and common sense,  must be equitable, the reasoning made public, and must be for the overall good of the community. For a free agent, this is a precondition for acceptance and compliance. A law is not valid if it doesn’t meet these conditions, and as such may be broken.

If a law is not reasonable, equitable and such, it is not just permissible to protest and break the law, (and if desired, to take necessary steps to avoid detection), it is the duty of all free agents to oppose, disobey, and break that law. To acquiesce (as distinct to active opposition) to an unreasonable and inequitable law is to perpetuate it, gives tacit approval to the corrupt, compromised and inept lawmakers, and is contrary to the long-term interests of society.

Such laws must be opposed, must be broken, must be defied,  that is the responsibility of all free agents.

The ‘rule of law’ is an intent to rationalize and validate control, and it is often used merely as a weapon to support the privileged and to attack the powerless. It is a mechanism of such control.

The lawmaker’s half-plead, half-threat,  of “you may disagree with a law, but you can’t disobey it”, is a totally meaningless distinction, but more, it is an implicit acknowledgment by the lawmaker of the baselessness of their claim to the legitimacy of the law.

Your understanding of,  and personal consent to, the law, is not required, and reason and fairness and openness may be entirely absent, but (because the law  is an exercise of their power and control, and an expression  of their agenda,) you are simply required to obey without reason or explanation. You are permitted an internal non-effectual objection, and it must remain internal, and it must be without force or import,  but you must still and always obey regardless.

Yet if a law is consistent with reason and common sense,  is  equitable, the reasoning open, and in the overall interest of the community, ‘disagree but obey’ is simply nonsensical. But the rule of law cannot even limit its own absurdity: disagree with good reason, but you must obey the unreasonable, the discriminatory, the inequitable and unfair, the concocted and deceitful, and even the absurd.  See with new eyes, open.

The legal system is concerned with the legal system,  they are as vultures picking over a rancid carcass. It has been oft said,  but is worthwhile repeating: the legal system is concerned only with the law, and  not justice, not reason, not equity. If the government made ketchup ( tomato sauce) illegal,  the police — subject to regular corruption and abuse of power issues– would arrest anybody with ketchup, and the courts would contest interpretation and argue particulars, usually at considerable financial cost to the accused (and in this paradigm more costly legal representation usually equates to a better result for the defence, so all subject to the law, all being nominally equal, but more leniency if you are privileged).

To the police and the courts a strict intellectual obedience and subservience applies –the door to rationality and reason is slammed shut, and the door to absurdity flung open– and no law is ever too unjust or unreasonable or fanciful to disobey At best one might hear them muttering the mantra, ‘disagree but obey’. But never,  ‘on good reason I disagree, and therefore I do not obey’.

If a law is  unjust, if a law is nonsensical, how is redress possible?

It must be, it can only be,  the individual, the  free agent, taking action. You.

If a law isn’t consistent with reason and common sense,  isn’t equitable, the reasoning isn’t made public, and isn’t for the overall good of the community, it is the duty of all free agents to oppose, disobey, and break that law.

In these circumstances,  if the state uses force against you, or threatens to use force, it is your duty to respond in kind.

The single and sole purpose of the state is to provide the framework for the interactions
of free agents. It has no purpose,  no meaning, no justification , no legitimacy, beyond
this, and it is only with the approval , initial and ongoing, of  free agents that the state
has any reason for existence.  The modern state has come to act as if the only reason for
free agency is to support the state, and that the state exists as some separate and beyond
entity to free agency. This argument is the modern equivalent of the divine right of


See with new eyes, open

Victorian supreme court judge, Michael Croucher, in sentencing Sevdet Ramadan Besim, 19, for planning to kill a police officer: “It was also evil because, among other things, the planned behaviour was calculated to undermine the authority of the institutions of government.”

Any claim to authority by the institutions of government was long ago extinguished by their lies, deception, and manipulation.

Who does history applaud? Dietrich Bonhoeffer and Irena Sendler, for example (only two examples among many throughout history) who broke the law and moved Jews to safety,  or the german police officer who helped round up Jews, likely knowing their destination in a concentration camp, and their fate.

So who of the two does history applaud?
Bonhoeffer and Sendler.
But they were breaking German law.
So there must be times when the law is over-ruled by something else. Bonhoeffer and Sendler understood that at the time, and history honors people like them.
What might be a justification for action like his, a justification available in the moment,  that might successfully predict a future history’s positive conclusion?
I say,  a law must be consistent with reason and common sense,  must be equitable, the reasoning made public, and must be for the overall good of the community. And it is not sufficient to simply disagree; one must act. YOU must ACT.