RULES, LAWS AND JUSTICE __________________________ Rules:     are a common agreement by individuals, as to the way in which a certain action or actions should or should not take place for the betterment or entitlement of  those individuals.     Rules are moral (that is, pertaining to our conduct and 'reasonableness' in relation to others about us) in the sense that they reflect values (or actions)  which are consistent with the survival of those individuals and for the betterment of those individual lives without imposing our individual wills, whims or fancies upon them.     Rules are self-regulating. That is, they require no interference from those who would deem to use them for their own purposes (e.g. financial gain or control). Laws :     derive from rules but are acted upon by certain self-proclaimed persons who would deem to use these rules for their own ends and thereby exert their control. These self-proclaimed persons are the controllers of others. They become by their own will, whims and fancies what they choose to call themselves, an Authority.     Thus laws become the fare of and for these controllers.     Attached to these then 'laws', are the notions of regality/regalness/god-given prejudices and so on, depending on the wills, whims and fancies of those who are able to effect the consequences of not abiding by them.     This becomes, the Right of Might so effected by these individuals and justified by their claim to some 'authority' they invent outside themselves (i.e. a god, king, president, and so on).     To instigate their then assumed authority, thereby, were invented 'lawyers'; (those versed in the laws of the Right of the Mighty). Without these 'lawyers',  individuals (it would appear) have no standing on their own or by their own rules. The laws of the Mighty now replace the rules of a society. Thus laws are not self-regulating.  To them are added adjuncts.     So now we are forced to be driven by a Law/yer-society, whether we want it or not, since it is driven  by the Right of Might (bottom line: we can beat you up and put you behind bars where you can't get out, or kill you (in the name of such a law)). The invention of 'Judges', further extends the aim/s of laws and lawyers. Under the auspices of a 'judge',  lawyers are able to play out their games with impunity. Lawyers never lose. The individual my well lose since the rules are now laws and governed by the Mighty.     Since we are forced to  live in a law/yer-driven world (the Right of Mighty), as opposed to a self-regulating one of our own rules, we are endangered as individuals and a species.  That is, unless backed up by a 'lawyer' versed in the self-proclamation of 'laws', we (the hoi polloi) have no standing. Our individuality and self-regulation has gone.     Some people have developed a litigious society in which we (humans) want no part. We want the rules back. Disobey the rules (each person's need of liberty, free thought, lack of control by another) and you suffer the consequences. Take my liberty and you forsake the liberty of yourself. Plain and simple.     Rain-forests have been depleted by the production of paper scratched upon by hordes of lawyers/solicitors/barristors/judges in the quest for what they call 'justice'. Justice is in the eye of the lawyer/judge depending upon the excessive fee charged.     There is absolutely no point in either a rule or a 'law' unless it can be monitored (by the populace) and the breakage acted upon. Those people who so wish, break rules and/or laws despite their instigation. The resultant rules and 'laws' are of no value to most people who don't need them anyway, as they behave in an appropriate manner.     We all suffer because of the few. If the few digress from a path of reasonableness, then they must accept the consequences: not the mass suffering because of the few.     The 'law' is couched in terms which are generally not meant to be understood by but the few so couched in such terms. This is because it generates income for those people who deem to administer such 'laws'. Rules are not about income. They are about a reasonable way of living together without 'let or hindrance', (even if this seems simplistic because those who deem it simplistic have vested interests in making money from rules turned into 'laws' by them). Laws are about income because of a vested interest in controlling people to conform to behaviours that are determined by a minority of individuals working against those who conform to reasonable behaviour without the necessity of being told what to do or how to behave. This is the origin of the Nannyistic society.     Having 'laws' which cannot be upheld (for whatever reason) makes a nonsense of having them in the first place. Laws or rules will be always be disregarded by those who do not act appropriately. If these rules or laws are regarded by those who do act appropriately (that is, for the betterment of individual lives, whatever that may be) then we would not need them anyway.     A rule is public. A law is specific. A rule is self-regulating. A law is not.     Rules are made up my common agreement. A law is made up by persons deeming to control others for their own gain.     The public, therefore, need to design the rules and guide-lines for acceptable behaviour. They also need to determine the 'punishment' of and for  those who do not conform to them. This matter should not be left to others who would deem to control them by their own whims and fancies and financial gain, nor some nannyistic principle which benefits them personally.     Laws are not for the protection of the public-at-large. They are manufactured by self-assumed/supposedly elected controllers (those who pay the police/army for their benefit. Justice What is Justice? Justice is  a quality.     It is defined as (variably), that which derives from straight; exact; complete; equitable; true; founded on fact; proper; well-deserved (that is, according to Collins English Dictionary c.1974).     A quality is defined (in the same dictionary) as: a particular property inherent in a body or substance; the essential attribute, or distinguishing feature or characteristic of anything; capacity  or position  and so on...     These definitions leave little to go on. Look them up in your favourite dictionary. Do they make any more sense?     In my view, justice is the reaction/s of the common (free) person to forms of behaviour that are not in agreement with the rules that they (the common people) have set down for living equitably with others. An equitable agreement is one that is agreed by the common people. (Common people are those who are born free (as we all were) and who live according to the principals which make their lives bearable in a hostile environment (if that is how they see it)). As I said in a previous article, some people need rules. A law is often made from these rules but enforceable by those who make the laws (the 'rulers'), not by those who make the rules.     As I said earlier, Laws are made by rulers (self-made and often elected! authorities/controllers of our lives). These laws made by such people and backed up by their own self-called Right of Might (i.e. bullying by any description you can imagine and includes, warnings, fines and so on).     Justice is NOT part of the Law. The Law states an outcome on the evidence presented. If evidence is lacking or not presented, then the law cannot consider a proper verdict. That evidence may not be heard for a number of reasons that are only led by the foibles of the individuals presenting that evidence. The law states that justice must be seen to have taken place or be done. If the proper evidence was not presented because of the way the 'justice' system works, then there is no justice, seen to be done or otherwise.     In no way is the law infallible. This is because the law is rigid. The world is crinkly, not linear. Thus the law cannot be seen to be justice to any party, the 'winner' or the 'loser'. The law is not infallible because it can be interpreted in a number of ways, which is why lawyers make an extremely good living, to the detriment of everyone except themselves. A lawyer never loses financially, only the client. In a bid to make the law less interpretable, the ascending spiral towards total chaos without the benefit of the knowledge of Chaos Theory, means that the law is getting even more ludicrous, and in my view, less just than it ever was.     There is time for the public to tell those whom they call the 'Government' to get their act together and start to serve the public, which is why they are there (for those who vote for them).     Personally, I don't need rules or laws. What rules I follow are obvious anyway and therefore not rules. Laws have never helped me in all my life; in fact, just the opposite.     The law is that the fast 'buck' rules, O.K?

Return to CONTENTS page