SUMMARY

 

The intention of this blog was to explore the concept of Natural Law as the source of man’s law and like that find out where these different laws converge and where they diverge. What I mean by Natural Law is explained in these two posts (What is Natural Law?; Does it even exist?) which I wrote at the very beginning. Nature in this sense would be God in its entirety as “everything there is” manifested in the tangible world as a form of “karmic laws.” What you put out is what you will receive. This is the idea of justice, rights and harmony. We are governed by these laws whether we acknowledge it or not, and all the laws that followed and that are in place now, all steam in a way or another from Natural Law, because they are expressions of it. However, the secular understanding of law is fairly recent and it is a misconceived understanding of where law comes from and what Natural or God’s Law entails. I say misconceived because they exclude a Godly origin as if there could be such separation. The reality is that there is no alternative to Natural Law, because it is everything, nature and mankind, it is cause and effect.

The Human Rights Doctrine, for example, is the pinnacle of secular law. Somewhere someone sometime decided to make a list of the supposed rights we all have; however, “if you don’t know your rights, you have none”. The very idea that without an “official” declaration listing them all, inherent rights do not exist is absurd. Moreover, these rights are in constant contradiction with what we see happening all the time, all around us. Like for example article one: “we are all born free and equal.” If you do not know who you are in relation to the “law” and someone has to come to tell you, then effectively you are not equal to the other. Nonetheless, it is assumed that if a right is not in the human rights declaration, then that must mean you cannot uphold it in court in an equitable and just manner. This is not how the judicial system works, after all, because this is not how Natural Law works. No man (or group of men) can be the source of law, because there is one already, whether you want to call it the “creator”, God or Nature, or everything there is. Whoever is the author, gets to make the law and be the authority. But if we are nature, and we are part of this everything, should we all not get to make the law? There is only one authority over men, and that is not the “elite” but everything there is, including and more than anyone else; oneself.  

Expressions of this idea are found all over history, the original Common Law was one of them. The idea of a republic or democracy are other ones or the same one in another form. These days, Common law is basically just case law precedent, where a case has been dealt by a court with a jury (usually) and then the decision can be used to help decide future cases. Queen’s Bench or High Courts usually deal with common law, this is an example of it. Equity means what is fair, just and equitable. Every Commonwealth country has a Supreme Court or Judicature Act which establishes equity’s prevalence. Equity came into place when the common man was not getting remedy through Common Law. Therefore, we are always effectively dealing with Contract Law. Statutes are essentially Bills put before parliament which are voted on and then legislation is created when it becomes an Act. This is so because of the prevalence of Equity but also because governments, ministries, councils, etc. are all registered trading corporations, private societies operating in the public.

I found that the difference between God’s Law and man’s law is that the former refers to the spiritual, simpler and closer to truth and the latter refers to technicality, the form of law and not the substance. There are essentially two realms in our world: public and private. Men has not created the natural world of substance; we only create and agree about the world of fiction. They may appear to be the same but they are mirror images of each other, they are opposite. The private realm, men and women, is the real, living realm. In the public realm, people are ‘persons’ and a person is a legal entity, which is a dead entity. The legal definition of a person is a trustee, a trustee in bankruptcy, driver, taxpayer, citizen, resident, etc. All of these are entities and thus non-living. In the world of the private, men and women are born with rights and they are unalienable, they cannot be taken away (no one can put a lien on them). But the mirror image of rights is benefits and privileges, and the dead can only have those. Governments were created to protect their people (men and women) they do not have to protect persons, thus they can tax, imprison, and fine persons but not people. From a legal point of view, dead people cannot see living people, thus both realms or jurisdictions cannot be mixed. Anybody in the public jurisdiction is acting under titles: the judge persona, the police officer persona, etc. And we all have our personas to be able to deal in the public. These are our trusts (Trust).

Men are the authors of governments, societies, statutory law, persons, corporations, constitutions, etc. These are mere concepts, abstractions, constructions that exist only because we agree they exist. Therefore, consent is the basis of all these things mentioned. We are governed by consent, there is no other way. Tyranny and coercion are another possibility but; first, we say we live in democracies and that we are free, so we cannot have both; second, systems based on coercion and tyranny do not last long, which point to the prevalence of Natural Law. Rousseau explained it: "the strongest is never strong enough to be always the master unless he transforms strength into right, and obedience into duty." Consent is crucial, without agreement we would not have any system. The judicial system is based on that idea, the law is based on that, because it is based on Natural Law principles. The other crucial part is how this concept is materialised, we can say that ‘we agree’ in a theoretical manner like the social contract, but where is the evidence that we do? And if we do not agree with society’s laws, can we not just refuse membership or cancel the contract?  

When we are born there is a document that is produced called Certificate of Live Birth. This is the document that later produces the Birth Certificate which is the instrument that connects the living with the fictional. It can allow the living to obtain benefits and privileges from the public realm but it is not to be used as source of identification. God does not count its people, but we live in count-ries. That legal entity is our person but it is not the man or woman, it is their Estate and it belongs to the State. We, men and women, can choose to be that ‘trust’, to use that trust, to have that trust in their State. That is our free will to choose, but that ‘thing’ cannot ever be a living being as we are; and as long as we are just a ‘ward of the state’, we cannot be men and women in public, and thus conserve and lawfully uphold our inherent unalienable rights. Our choice constitutes our standing in relation to ourselves and others. Understanding where the ‘ego for the others’ (persona) ends, and the real self starts is the way to understand the rules of the game in which one is a player in order to be able to choose either to play or to step out of the game.

Therefore, a key point that allows mankind to jump from one realm to the other is accepting responsibility (or liability), about growing up and emancipating from father (patria) State, about sustaining oneself and being able to defend one’s property in the private without causing harm to others, without being a danger to oneself and the community. This is what having free-dominion is about, dominating the beast inside and thus conducting one’s affairs in the public realm with a persona that is not a shadow to oneself but that has been integrated and that, therefore, acts honourably inside (private) and outside (public). But if we cannot hold ourselves liable first, we cannot hold others liable for their actions as that would mean that there is an incoherence. The laws of nature will make sure to turn this incoherence into an obstacle, making it become ignorance of our power, ignorance of the law, confusion and rage which is directed towards a system that we all create with our consent and our ignorance.

In contract law, silence and arguing are dishonourable ways to reply to an offer; and how could not be so, it makes perfect sense it is. We can see that ignorance of any kind is a dishonourable way to live by; to yourself and to others. When you do not agree with something, you have to know how to express it so it is firm and keeps harm away but also so it does not harm anyone in the process. If we do not like the Office of National Statistics because we know it is corrupt, or we just don’t want to allow the State’s intrusion into our privacy, then it is our moral duty to be consequent and coherent with that conviction and to not exchange convenience for expressing our conviction. In this example, the easiest way would have been to reply to the census letter by complying with their demands and be coerced by their supposed “law” and “fines” and forget about it, but that just contributes to aggravating the problem and we would be going against ourselves and what we believe to be right. Instead, the conditional acceptance method takes time of us, dedication, research and courage, but it stops our contribution to something we do not agree with. If we feel the same about taxes, licenses, political corruption, etc, it is our moral duty to say it and live accordingly.

We cannot keep complaining from a status of children and expect to be heard by the Judicial System. We the people are the fathers of governments and it is us acting as children that allows the people acting as government to do what they do, because governments are orphans until the real authority (the people) steps in and takes power. It, therefore, makes sense that proponents of these ideas are anarchists themselves (although not all of them, as many see the value in having a state which really helps in administrative terms but that individuals are ultimately the source and power of authority) because they propose to abolish ideas of authority between men, in a way empowering mankind to take the role of masters of their own being which is their kingdom. Being free of our own selfish desire is the only way to abolish slavery.

This should not be confused with childish ideals of “forever bliss”, for example. This world, and Natural Law as the essence of this world, is chaos and order and thus controversies (chaos) will always exist with varying ways of life. We should not aspire for permanent order as that is precisely what brings control and ultimately derives in chaos. However, a man with the capacity to know and accept Natural forces outside and within himself, can settle any controversies without the need for tight and restrictive norms outside himself and without sacrificing an equitable result in the end; he is a spiritual being. Peace officers would be enough, policy enforcers would not exist or if they did, they would be illegitimate and thus carry no weight whatsoever. Accepting liability is thus equal to accepting a Godly origin; meaning that we know we are part of everything, and at the same time the part that contains everything. This in turn becomes the acceptation that we are in control and we are the creators of our life and co-creators of the “system”. Without taking responsibility, the soul feels ostracised from the whole, it needs literality in order to be expressed, and the results are chaotic. Responsibility brings light, freedom, and standing. Responsibility brings the rights to the being, and only there the idea that we are all equal under the law achieves full meaning, because as long as we rely on fictional entities to do the work we do not want to do, we will give our power away to those entities who cannot and will not take liability for what they do with this power.