The law on trial
Yesterday’s piece of whimsy got me thinking.
What exactly is my attitude to the law?
Well, I suppose if I were to answer that I would have to explain what my concept of the law is.
Suppose there were no laws? What would happen then?
Basically, it would be up to us as individuals to defend our personal concepts of right and wrong. We all have certain basic rights as individuals such as the right to life and the right to live in peace without interference. Some transgressions of these rights, such as murder, rape and theft are patently wrong and it would be up to ourselves to defend ourselves which would lead to a society where wrongdoers could prevail through strength.
So what we need is a system where we hand over to society the right to act on our behalf to protect us from wrongdoing. If someone steals from me, I have the right to appeal to society to exact justice on my behalf. I have no problems with that.
So at its most basic, the law is there to protect me [at my request] from those who would do me an injustice.
But on closer examination, this system has a small flaw – what is an injustice? Some believe in the right to private property where others believe in common ownership. What happens there? The answer is that we have a consensus. If the majority believe in private ownership then the law of theft comes into play. It is really that simple.
So why to I rail against the law so much if it is there to protect me?
Again the answer is simple – because the law has been hijacked by vested interests, government and bureaucracy.
How does a law compelling me to have the letter “E” stamped on my car tyres protect me? How does a law enabling the government to dip their hands into my pockets on a whim protect me? How does a law stating that I can’t own a gun protect me? How does a law saying I can’t purchase ten cigarettes protect me? The list is endless and bewildering.
The law has become a weapon against the very people who it is supposed to protect. It is being used and abused as a weapon of mass control. The law itself has become a method of oppression.
I believe in the concept of “do as you would be done by”, which should be the basis upon which the law works, but the law has become one-sided. The government can demand all sorts of payment from me, but I can’t demand anything in return.
Take a very simple example. I can travel abroad and while there I chose to purchase myself a year’s supply of cigarettes, because they are cheaper, or I like the brand. I pay good money for those cigarettes and I bring them home. Have I harmed anyone? No. Is anyone suffering because of my actions? No. So why does the law permit “agents of the state” to force their way onto my private property, confiscate those cigarettes and possibly even send me to prison?
Or another simple example. I decide to park my car. I park it safely where it inconveniences no one and doesn’t in any way obstruct anything. Yet I run the risk of having my car “legally” stolen and impounded and am then forced to pay a ransom either because I happened to park on a couple of arbitrary painted lines or I parked where someone feels they have a right to charge me to park even though they don’t own the road. Is the law protecting me, or is it legalised extortion and theft?
The law which was originally intended to protect the people has become subverted by the state and that is why I refuse to comply where at all possible.
I rest my case, M’lud.
Now this might seem a tad 'weird' to many but I have done a bit of research for myslef and discovered there is legal and then there is lawful. They are ot the same thing even though all governments obfuscate them together.The research was inspired by a 'parking enforcement company' sending me an invoice for £195 for staying beyond the 2 hour limit on the local Co-ops FREE car park. To cut a long story short what they were doing was perfectly legal but when one of their ilk tried it on in court by claiming an obstinate 'registred keeper' should pay their invoice the judge threw the case out in minutes as it wasn't lawful to charge for something the enforcement company hadn't lost, namely the charges they invoiced for.Certainly opened my eyes and needless to say the parking enforcement company didn't get a bean and I told every member of staff in that Co-op about the scam as well as everyone I knew who shopped there. Too a man or a woman they were astonished as a fair few had been invoiced and coughed up.
For a long time I have been a follower of Captain Ranty who is an expert in these matters [though he would probably modestly deny it?]. He has opened my eyes to such things as "legal" "lawful" and Law vs Statute. There is one hell of a lot going on that relies on public ignorance and also fear of "the system".
I would love to get a handle on the whole subject but it's a bit beyond me. I prefer to stick with simpler matters such as searching for the Unifying Theory and mucking around with the Theory of Relativity.
Forgot to add. Not sure what the Irish equivalent of the DVLA is called but the DVLA couldn't give a toss who onws a car. All they want is a name to be handed over which they list on their register as a 'registered keeper'. Should that name move without telling them then it becomes a keeper only… there is a difference according to the DVLA but coming back to the point. If the owner of the car is not the registered keeper then the DVLA can't do very much with the car itself although they can go after the registred keeper for any charges that arise from the use of the car. In the new year my car is being used as the trust res in a private trust.
Trusts are immensley powerful creations that may well be the answer to a lot of life's ills and I am still trying to figure them out but figiure them out I will.
I haven't a clue what system they use here for registering car ownership, though I can pretty much guarantee it's probably in a bigger mess than the DVLA. I must look into that one!
Some info here GDhttp://www.transport.ie/roads/motortax/?lang=ENG&loc=2468Tis all done out the road in Shannon.
The National Vehicle and Driver File (NVDF) is a database containing details of all 2.5 million registered vehicles and their owners as well as the 2.6 million licensed drivers in the country. The system which is maintained and supported by the Driver and Vehicle Computer Services Division of the Dept of Transport Tourism and Sport , located in Shannon, Co. Clare, is central to the processing of motor tax and driving licence business through which in excess of 1 Billion Euros is collected annually. The NVDF also fulfills legal obligations in relation to the national driver and vehicle registers.Over 1 billion collected annually.. about a third of the Anglo promissory note. Jesus
" is central to the processing of motor tax and driving licence business"There you go the truth writ large. Government is a business nothing more.
I have not signed the Voter Registration Form for 3 years, under threat of £1,000 fine.
So correct me if I am wrong, but you are exercising your democratic right to not vote, and the law [which is supposed to be for your protection] wants you to cough up £1,000 for the privilege? Anyone spot the error here???
I don't think it is unlawful (or illegal) to not register to vote in the UK. The UK Census yes, but millions binned the form and nothing happened.
Well my wife and I have been off the electoral roll for the past three years and we aren't down 6k. Like most other 'fines of up to £1000' they are threats nothing more. Number one son is over 'voting age' and never been on the electoral roll and best of all he has no intention of ever being on it.
Good God Grandad ! There you go telling the truth again. How in hell do you expect to ever get paid for what you write so brilliantly. This truth charade of yours could make a lot of wealthy and influential people lose their power and money. Are you fucking mad ??? Get back into line and stop this honest rambling immediately. Of course legal and lawful are two entirely different things. How the blazes do you think the "proles" are kept behind the barricades. You'll be asking for decency and fairness next if you keep this up ! No good will come of that carry-on.
"You'll be asking for decency and fairness next" Nah! I know my place.
And as for Justice, you can fuck right off with that ancient nonsense.
Talking of ancient nonsense, I think I may just revert to the Brehon Laws. A lot better than the fucking shite they throw at us these days!
Or these http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molmutine_Laws
Totally agree GD.. why should we blindly accept whatever becomes 'illegal', when there are gangsters and incompetents in charge, who couldn't care less about the people they're supposed to represent?These seem relevant – George Carlinhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYIC0eZYEtIand –
Heh! I've seen that one before. Well worth repeating though.
And – Ze FranK http://ashow.zefrank.com/episodes/32
It constantly amazes me how laws are used in countries I choose to live in. In this big space on the arse end of the world we have such beauties as:If your car radio can be heard outside the car: FINE. Not FINE, good on you but :FINE, money out of pocket. Jesus I had to spell that out just in case.If you drive a car with a tow bar attached (no trailer): FINE…… Ah fuck it I could be here all day, ranting about this.My point is all these laws were written by people. Ordinary people like you and me.What happens to us> Why do we go off the deep end?
Of course if you really want crazy laws, just nip over to Merka. They have some real classics.
Sorry about that – I'm tired…
back.. this bit popped back into the cranial cavity -" How does a law stating that I can’t own a gun protect me? " Because it protects you from all the other knuggledraggers who can't own a gun either.
Excellent point. The law should exist to ensure that the person is superior in strength to the lawbreaker. A lawbreaker can and does carry guns which upsets the natural order. In a society where no guns are available [legally or illegally] then a law preventing gun ownership is workable but unnecessary. Where guns are freely available illegally, this puts the average citizen at a complete disadvantage unless he or she can equally access guns.
If I may… fuck it I am… A most excellent response, Richard.
GD, when was the last time a gun was pointed at you? You've no need of a gun to protect you, as most people don't have guns in this country either… thank god.
How many times do you want 'em to point a gun at me? It only needs to happen once?
I'd imagine the likelihood of it happening would increase significantly if everyone could freely get access to guns to 'protect' them, just in case. Anyways, a pipe suits you much better than a gun.. 🙂
Why Would it increase significantly?
I don't know.. why would it increase significantly do ya think?
Ever tried defending yourself with a pipe? Even a loaded one?
On second thoughts, with all the anti-smoker propaganda around all I would have to do is threaten to breathe on them and they'd run a mile for fear of having an instant heart attack or instant cancer?