Go Back   David Icke's Official Forums > Main Forums > Lawful Rebellion / Non Compliance / Sovereignty

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 16-04-2013, 08:48 PM   #1
suedenimes
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 52
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default Is The Law legal?

Quite simply, let's discuss the law. Is the law legal?

Let's begin by considering this. At one time, there was no law. Then an individual, or group of individuals, decided that there was a law (any arbitrary law). How can this be legal? Extrapolate this to modern day law, and we arrive at the logical conclusion that no law is legal.

Thoughts?

We must fight the NWO together, Brethren.

Last edited by suedenimes; 17-04-2013 at 02:48 AM.
suedenimes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16-04-2013, 09:25 PM   #2
redpill41
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Ireland
Posts: 250
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

The purpose of the original law was to keep people safe and set out a standard everyone was expected to live by i think ,It's gone wrong though and now the laws are written for the corporations through their paid lobbying of our law writers. If a company stops doing well it simply sends the lobbyists into parliament and asks the govt to " regulate"! Thereby wiping out smaller competitors. Laws now and a hundred years ago are a different kettle of fish
redpill41 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16-04-2013, 09:43 PM   #3
the mighty zhiba
Inactive
 
the mighty zhiba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 20,828
Likes: 5,989 (2,995 Posts)
Default

If one causes another harm, loss or suffering, then therein a victim is created.

Where law seeks to remedy such victimization, then it can be judged as fair.

Whether fair and legal are the same thing may be a matter of some consternation between debaters

Consider a court of law who imprisons a human being for contempt of court. the human being has created no victim, and may have been simply asking pertinent questions to find themselves in contempt - yet he is judged and sentenced according to law - and effectively is caused harm, loss and suffering even though they have not victimized any one.

If law is legal it is legal in the sense that the people elect a body representative to act on their behalf, and to create a system of law (statute law) to protect the electorate and keep a 'peace' where

A) there is no victim and
B) (if there is a victim) the law offers remedy

Such seems to present a consensual attitude of the people through election, wherein the people abide to the domestic consensus of the electorate to empower a body representative to make laws which control them.

the law makers make law legal - they have the wherewithal and the power to enforce their word, whether that word is fair, just, legal or lawful.

***************

For the first law to be legal, one would assume that the law was reached by consensus of a given society - and therein that law was consented to and made legal by that very same generic consent.
the mighty zhiba is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16-04-2013, 10:28 PM   #4
aulus agerius
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,418
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by suedenimes View Post
Quite simply, let's discuss the law. Is the law legal?

Let's begin by considering this. At one time, there was no law. Then an individual, or group of individuals, decided that there was a law (any arbitrary law). How can this be legal? Extrapolate this to modern day law, and we arrive at the logical conclusion that no law is legal.

Thoughts?

We must fight the NWO together, brethren.
First, by your own logic, the first law could be neither legal nor illegal - there was no law. It is the chicken/egg paradox
Second, by this logic, murder is legal, but law is not.
Third, go read the Concept of Law by H.L.A. Hart if you have a genuine interest in the origins and philosophy of law.
__________________
"Leaders of the Freeman-on-the-Land movement... teach a political theory based on a radical interpretation of social contract... For them, the social contract is not a primordial construct founding the legitimacy of government but an actual contract between an individual and the state…
This teaching is not only wrong in the sense that it is false. It is wrongful. That is, it is full of wrong."
R v. McCormick 2012 NSSC 288 per HHJ Moir at [28-32] Link
aulus agerius is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16-04-2013, 10:52 PM   #5
vegan_on_the_land
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,122
Likes: 17 (13 Posts)
Default

Law is just a matter of opinion. Opinions change and laws change. What is legal now might be illegal in the future and what is illegal now might be legal in the future. Even murder has been legal at certain times and in certain places - murder in the sense of killing someone who is doing no harm and with whom you are not at war.
vegan_on_the_land is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-04-2013, 12:53 AM   #6
dontpushme
Inactive
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,359
Likes: 1 (1 Post)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by suedenimes View Post
Quite simply, let's discuss the law. Is the law legal?

Let's begin by considering this. At one time, there was no law. Then an individual, or group of individuals, decided that there was a law (any arbitrary law). How can this be legal? Extrapolate this to modern day law, and we arrive at the logical conclusion that no law is legal.

Thoughts?

We must fight the NWO together, brethren.
i think you should define law and legal, i'd suggest legal extends from the law, and so your title seems to not make sense (to me at least)

Quote:
legal |ˈlēgəl|
adjective
1 [ attrib. ] of, based on, or concerned with the law : the American legal system.
• appointed or required by the law : a legal requirement.
• of or relating to theological legalism.
• Law recognized by common or statutory law, as distinct from equity.
• (of paper) measuring 8 ½ by 14 inches.
2 permitted by law : he claimed that it had all been legal.
DERIVATIVES
legally |ˈligəli| adverb : [ sentence adverb ] legally, we're still very much married.
ORIGIN late Middle English (in the sense [to do with Mosaic law] ): from French, or from Latin legalis, from lex, leg- ‘law.’ Compare with loyal .
dontpushme is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-04-2013, 01:16 PM   #7
firstworldproblems
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 929
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dontpushme View Post
i think you should define law and legal, i'd suggest legal extends from the law, and so your title seems to not make sense (to me at least)
+1

Bullseye.
__________________
What? I need to carry a piece a paper? Slavery!
firstworldproblems is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-04-2013, 02:08 PM   #8
dontpushme
Inactive
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,359
Likes: 1 (1 Post)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by firstworldproblems View Post
+1

Bullseye.

truly, i never thought i'd see the day we'd agree on anything
dontpushme is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-04-2013, 03:38 PM   #9
reverendjim
Inactive
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: canada
Posts: 8,306
Likes: 1,348 (822 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dontpushme View Post
truly, i never thought i'd see the day we'd agree on anything
one must be able to start from somewhere...but is it worth pursuing?
reverendjim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-04-2013, 03:49 PM   #10
dontpushme
Inactive
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,359
Likes: 1 (1 Post)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by reverendjim View Post
one must be able to start from somewhere...but is it worth pursuing?
i will put it down to an anomalous blip, me and fwp outlooks are to far diverged to agree and i dont compromise on natural rights
dontpushme is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-04-2013, 05:31 PM   #11
jlord
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 589
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
1 [ attrib. ] of, based on, or concerned with the law
Certainly the law is based on, or concerned with the law, isn't it? I don't see how it couldn't be legal by the definition posted by dontpushme.
jlord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-04-2013, 06:58 PM   #12
msbpunk
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Birmingham UK
Posts: 1,099
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by suedenimes View Post
I have to say, I am impressed with the logic in this thread.

However, I would define a law as:
'Instructions and terms, agreed upon by everyone (exhaustively), to follow.'

t.
Is that your personal opinion, or a generally agreed definition? If so, from where?
msbpunk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-04-2013, 07:08 PM   #13
msbpunk
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Birmingham UK
Posts: 1,099
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

First you would have to get everyone (exhaustively) to agree. Which seems impossible to me. Prisons are full of people who didn't agree they should obey the laws that protect the majority.
msbpunk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-04-2013, 07:17 PM   #14
dontpushme
Inactive
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,359
Likes: 1 (1 Post)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by msbpunk View Post
First you would have to get everyone (exhaustively) to agree. Which seems impossible to me. Prisons are full of people who didn't agree they should obey the laws that protect the majority.
protect the majority? are you saying the majority have a greater right to life then the minority (excluding those incarcerated for crimes where there is a victim)? and who is who to say what is best for the majority? have they got a greater right to life then the rest of the majority? democracy certainly doesn't give any individuals (except the representatives) within the majority the option to decide what is best or not
dontpushme is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-04-2013, 07:20 PM   #15
msbpunk
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Birmingham UK
Posts: 1,099
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Not impossible to define a law, impossible to get absolute 100% agreement on every law.
Laws exist, whether you agree with or consent to them or not. Just look what happens to fmotl who play the "I do not consent" card.

Last edited by msbpunk; 17-04-2013 at 07:20 PM.
msbpunk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-04-2013, 07:23 PM   #16
dontpushme
Inactive
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,359
Likes: 1 (1 Post)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by suedenimes View Post
I have to say, I am impressed with the logic in this thread.

However, I would define a law as:
'Instructions and terms, agreed upon by everyone (exhaustively), to follow.'

therefore the definition of legal can be extrapolated from this.

Therefore we can assume that the first law was legal, assuming the population was small enough for everyone to agree on the first law. Or we could even say that law was defined before the first law was even created, which is possible, based upon the above definition.

However, any further law creation, where everyone is not involved cannot be legal, from the previous definition. This is unless of course, a law was passed by everyone to allow laws to be made by a subset of everyone. Which no-one in their right mind would allow.

I therefore conclude that no laws are legal.

Also, I would like to elaborate on the definition of 'law'. The definition is instantaneous, when the next child is born, the definition does not hold, as they may not agree on the definition of law. Therefore it is in fact impossible for law to be defined, for any non-trivial period of time.

I therefore conclude that no laws are legal, and laws in fact, cannot be legal.

Keep thinking, Brethren.
i'd define it slightly differently, but i think it would fall into 1 of 2 groups

1 rules agreed upon between parties (contracts, rules of societies etc)
2 rights inherent to all humans (negative rights, not to associate, not to have bodily intergrity violated etc)

and from these extend legal duties

eg no harm, honor contracts
dontpushme is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-04-2013, 07:26 PM   #17
dontpushme
Inactive
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,359
Likes: 1 (1 Post)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by msbpunk View Post
First you would have to get everyone (exhaustively) to agree. Which seems impossible to me. Prisons are full of people who didn't agree they should obey the laws that protect the majority.
and how does some victimless statute help the majority? from where i'm sat it only works to exclude and alienate a percentage of human culture - how is that a good thing? segregation is never good, race, religion, life style choice, it stinks of elitism

Last edited by dontpushme; 17-04-2013 at 07:29 PM.
dontpushme is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-04-2013, 11:19 PM   #18
firstworldproblems
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 929
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

That is not how words work.
firstworldproblems is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-04-2013, 12:47 PM   #19
reverendjim
Inactive
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: canada
Posts: 8,306
Likes: 1,348 (822 Posts)
Default Is The Law legal?

the law is what the law makers say it is. what you do about it is your concern.
reverendjim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-04-2013, 12:51 PM   #20
reverendjim
Inactive
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: canada
Posts: 8,306
Likes: 1,348 (822 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by msbpunk View Post
First you would have to get everyone (exhaustively) to agree. Which seems impossible to me. Prisons are full of people who didn't agree they should obey the laws that protect the majority.
this is why some people favour republics
reverendjim is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:15 PM.


Shoutbox provided by vBShout (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.