Private vs. Government Positive Law

Been a while, but I guess there is no point in posting when I can't think of anything to post.  To whit, I have found something I want to post, namely, regarding private positive law.

Theologians mention positive law as any laws that are made in addition to God's laws.   A better definition may be that positive law is any law created be any human for the purpose of regulation of human behavior.   (Regulation = the causing of regularity)

The most obvious instances of positive law happen to be those laws that governments make and enforce.  Laws regarding how you may run your business, what medications you may manufacture, what plant fiber you may not ingest; the list is endless and endlessly absurd when it comes to government's positive laws. (seriously, who gives a crap if I have a sharp piece of metal in my pocket, I happen to collect sharp pieces of metal.)

Private positive laws are the most useful positive laws I have come across in my life time.   Businesses tend to write out the majority of private positive laws (I think), though individuals do write their own positive laws.   Contracts, whether between businesses, individuals, or both, provide for the most common form of private positive law, because, as I defined positive law above, a contract seeks to regulate human behavior.

When a singer signs a contract to sing so many songs for so much money, that singer has voluntarily chosen to cooperate with a business.   The signing of the contract results in both the business and the individual to act in a regular manner, as the contract describes; this regularity would not occur unless all parties to the contract were voluntarily interested in acting regularly.   This is the beauty of private positive law in the form of contracts, in that no amount of enforcement or coercion is necessary, so long as the government is no involved, of course.

Another form of private positive law is that of internal business policy.   Many businesses, like Google, have a privacy policy that basically says they will not provide private information to outside sources.  The sole and tragic exception to that simple policy is when the government starts asking for private information, at which point the privacy policy general accommodates the government totally by explaining the businesses willingness to comply with the government's positive laws (my words not their's).

As you can see, private positive law tends to be helpful in regulating human behavior so long as government does not become an issue.

Government positive laws started out as dictates from chiefs and kings.   When the king wanted something, like a tribute or tax, he would declare that all in his jurisdiction shall do or be punished.   This simple reliance upon violence (punishment) to regulate human behavior (pay your taxes) is the basis of every government positive law.   The possible exception is when a law tells a department of government to do something, as a punishment is not mentioned. (Maybe the government employees know they will lose their job if they don't do as the government positive law says.)

In short, positive law regulates human behavior; government positive law regulates behavior based on violence; private positive law regulates behavior based on mutual consent.  It is therefore sad that so many theologians look to government as the sole source of positive law, which is the most disgraceful form of it; maybe more people should be taught economics rather than merely the three R's.

I hope to expound more on private positive law in the future, as it shows how humans can live in tranquility without recourse to the wickedness of government.

Legislative Tyranny: Commentary on a John Locke quotation

So, my mom sent me a link to a Free Republic post, which quotes several sections of John Locke's Two Treatises on Government: sections 221-225. The Free Republic post is here: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2474248/posts


Section 221:

The "contrary to their trust" clause is very important, but the next line quoted is the real meat, because Locke is suddenly so much more specific there. Basically, if a legislature or the executive makes itself, the community (whatever that is), or some other person the invader of property and the disposer of life, liberty, or fortune of the People, then the legislative or executive is ripe to be dissolved. (I wonder if Locke considers ignoring such a branch of government to be dissolution?)

I bet if you mention that to anyone in the Federal government, you might get your name put on a list, just in case the Federal government actually becomes tyrannical, so that SWAT teams can scoop you up for your treachery.

Since Socialized Medicine means that the State has a vested interest in how you and I live, the State would then come to your house and demand that you take any test or any medicine or any treatment, regardless of your being a free human being or how safe the intake actually is. Since every Fiat Government in human history likes using the threat of force to get what it wants, you can be rest assured that Socialized Medicine will lead to the Federal government to start threatening people if they don't pay. Oh wait, the IRS already does that. Fiat Government always justifies its actions by the outcomes it wants, regardless of actual outcome. I expect that the most prominent outcome the Federal government will seek is to make everyone in America healthy, but to lower costs first. Money is too important, you know, for the Feds to worry about your genuine safety as a child of God. Then again, the Feds probably should be worrying about foreign threats rather than whether or not I took my medication this morning.

Section 222:

Locke, having a deep interest in property as the most important liberty, focuses on the value of property when a man enters into society.

Locke is right that men look to legislative bodies to protect their property, and that makes sense only as long as that man trusts the legislative. However, history shows that legislatures are the worst entities to go to seeking protection, because they are slow and constantly passing new laws to replace the old laws. I would rather pay a thief to protect my property, because I could at least hold him accountable if he steals something, whereas the legislature could ban something I own and the police, and maybe the National Guard too, would come and take that property of mine and I would then have to fight dozens of jerks rather than one jerk. (However, Governments only lose by suicide, though I will get into that in a later post.)

The first emboldened part of the quote is obviously the most important, and probably because the guy put it in bold when Locke did not (Sarcasm, how original, eh?):

"whenever the legislators endeavour to take away, and destroy the property of the people, or to reduce them to slavery under arbitrary power, [the legislators] put themselves into a state of war with the people, who are thereupon absolved from any farther obedience, and are left to the common refuge [defensive force?], which God hath provided for all men, against force and violence."

I don't know any better quote that should be plastered all over the walls of Congress, because the Legislature needs to read it before voting on any bill. Not even the Ten Commandments are this important when considering whether a bill ought to be passed, because the irreligious only listen to the threat of force, just like a typical Statist.

Ought we then to show up at Congress with our rifles and shoot the lot for their crimes? My answer is no. The American People ought to ignore the legislative fiat, because such does not apply to us who can consent only to so much. If they come for our children, offer hot lead. If they come for our guns, offer them all of the hot lead they want. If they come for our lives, get your neighbors to offer them hot lead as you call your relatives for more hot lead.

If the Legislature in DC wants war, they can have it from after they start demanding what they ought not have. We Americans are a people of prudence, killing only in defense of good people . . . and twice for the French. If you have not gone against the Ten Commandments, then how can the Legislators punish you? The Ten commandments are the justification for government, and the limit on government. Every other document is merely redundant for the sake of those who have darkened intellects due to Original and Actual sin, me included.

The next emboldened lines of the quotation speak of the contractual breach that the Legislature commits when it does as Locke describes beforehand. Locke is just being redundant, but only to make sure that the reader understands the implications of oppressive government. I won't go into any more of Locke, because I see this as Locke's most important point. I just wish that he could have not written so much just to get to it. If you haven't read it yet, read it all; it is good moral support in the face of tyranny.

Now, to apply the quotation to America, you would first have to figure out how you could dissolve all of the legislatures of the states and of the Federal government, because, by Locke's standard, each is in violation of their contract and deserving of dissolution. I do realize that some states are better than others, mostly just Texas, but John Locke is defining the principle of government, and that we ought to adhere to that principle. Locke probably did not expect what we have now to come about, but, in his defense, statism requires our kind of technology to procreate (or is that defecate?) at a noticeable speed. I advocate that the legislatures purge the statutes they created and only meet once a year or less.

I will just cut to the chase. Who do you trust more, the government or the People? The Declaration of Independence and Constitution say the People. Therefore, I answer: the People. Fie upon they that threaten my for not giving up what is God-given rightfully mine to keep. I'll keep what God gave to me, thank you very much.


In the Future, I will have to describe how I imagine a government by the consent of the governed would deal with crime, while needing no legislature to define crimes. I will name that Means later in its own post.

In the Future, I will answer the first question in parentheses that I ask regarding whether ignoring part of government equals, to any degree, dissolving that part of government.


Thanks and enjoy what you have because you only have today,
Joe

Populism in Muse's, "Uprising"

For my first post, I will discuss Muse's famous song, Uprising:

Muse's song, Uprising, is a song in support of some sort of rising up and taking of the Power back. The lyrics suggest that "they" are opposed to our own welfare, politically and spiritually. However, one must not mistake the idea behind this song with republican revolution, as seen only in the American Revolution. Populism is the aim of Uprising.

Populism is generally a branch of Marxism, in that it holds that the middle-class, or the bourgeoisie, is responsible for the ills of society. The lyrics "green belt" are likely a reference to the practice of city-planners to place dedicated areas for flora, to create a feeling of living in a semi-rural city. Tim Harford argues that this sort of city-planning is an effort by the middle class to maintain the bourgeoisie status quo. This idea of the status quo holds that the bourgeoisie is trying to maintain scarcity of housing by reserving the land for leisure spots rather than shelter. While I do agree with the idea that such land is better suited for more utilitarian purposes, I cannot find it worthwhile to carte blanc blame the middle class for the ill-use of the land. Rather, I must stress the idea that the only individuals who actually lobby in city politics tends to be the more wealthy of individuals, who are among the upper class(if their is even classes).

While one can call Muse's call to uprising by Europeans a good thing, one must remember that at the heart of populism is Marxism, with the understanding that the People does not include the middle class. Muse appears to want to knock the middle class down a few pegs and have the People ascend. Muse forgets to mention that Marx, Lenin, and Mao, who were mass-murderers and advocates for total government, each advocated for the lower class to throw off the middle class and take the power back. What the Russians and Chinese got from that is total government, with genocide and the shift of power from the People to a total government.

Muse's song must not be taken as being in line with the kind of revolution that America waged in 1776. Rather, Muse's song must be taken as the likely shift of European politics from desiring democracy, to taking on the yoke of total government. Don't get me wrong, I am not under the impression that Europe is somehow free, as America is free. Europe is currently under fiat government, and the only thing between ability for total government and execution of total government is a crisis.

Europe is not in anyway prepared for virtuous liberty. She has long forgotten what it is like to be free and healthy in herself and in her People. Europe is ripe for either German-style total government or Islamic-style total government via Shariah law.

I only ask, "When will Europe wholeheartedly embrace the shift from fiat government to total government?" I pray that my friends in Europe will be able to alter their present circumstances, before they lose their continent to Islam.



In the future, I will discuss how education in Europe may affect the above.

Wittiness of the Day: "The Revolutions of the Old World and of Asia are started by the upper class stirring the lower class toward killing the middle class. The Upper class then takes over, and the lower class wind up with in a worse situation, probably suffering what the middle got."



Thank you and have a wonderful life,
Joe