The basis of law is justice not obedience


In order to gain perspective, it is useful to divide the world in two: those things that were created by man and those things that were not created by man. Buildings and trees both exist, but buildings do not grow out of the ground. It is civilization on the one hand and wild nature on the other.

Similarly, there are two sets of laws: the laws created by man and the laws not created by man, the laws of nature. Within the laws created by man we can include official laws, but also unofficial laws such as etiquette or custom. The laws of nature include physics and laws of necessity such as eating food and drinking water in order to survive. The laws of nature are impossible to break. Man-made laws, on the other hand, can indeed be broken if one chooses to break them. Deeming something legal or illegal does not carry the same force as a law of nature.

With this in mind, we may ask: what did man do before man-made law and how did man conceive of law to govern society in the first place? Who wrote the first laws? They had nothing to refer to; someone had to divine them first. A book of laws did not just fall from the sky.

At some point, people simply used their minds to work things out in reality. By observing nature and paying attention to how people interacted, they bottom lined it and created official laws for how man could act in accordance with reality and the laws of nature. Thus the first man-made laws were created.

People first used their minds to divine what was right and just, and second, recorded these observations as official codes of conduct. What is right and just is not dependent on what is deemed official law or code, rather, it is the other way around, laws and codes are dependent on what is right and just as divined by the mind. Man-made laws are always secondary to the laws of nature.

What is right and what is just, is primary, and what is lawful is secondary. The goal is to have the secondary in accordance with the primary. But, again, a law is not right and just, merely by virtue of the fact that it has been recorded or deemed as such. And on the other side of the coin, something may be wrong even if it is technically legal.

To resort to justifying what is right or wrong by referring to law or a hand book is the “I was just following orders” alibi. It is a convenient way to shut off your mind, obey your master, and ignore the grand scheme of things. To do what is right and just, even if it be unlawful, or to refrain from doing wrong, even if it be lawful, is a responsibility too great for many men.

Plato noted this many years ago when he pointed out that wisdom is not found in a book. Any man who merely recites what is written down as justification will be a burden to his fellow man. The upside to records is that experience is streamlined and we do not have to suffer the folly of our ancestors. The downside is that we do not experience these things first hand and we take things for granted. We move further and further away from reality itself.

The mind becomes feeble when it relies exclusively on records and codes of conduct that are “just so.” Eventually, people begin to base what is right or wrong on what is law or custom, rather than the other way around. A law based on a law, based on a law, eventually begins to have no grounding in reality.

Apply this logic to the Bundy Ranch situation or to the Weev situation. Who is acting according to natural law and who is acting according to man-made legal law? Imagine it was the days before laws or books or writing, who looks like the aggressor and who looks like they have righteousness and justice on their side? In fact, the federal government is not merely using a single, simple law as justification; they are using law based on law based on law. It is a labyrinthine mess of precedent, statutes, provisions, additions, citations, ABC, and XYZ so far removed from nature and reality it is not even funny.

The story of history and civilization could be seen as the tension between what is right and what the official man-made law is. Many a hero was made by breaking the law. The law is always secondary to what man feels, in his gut, is right and just. Man-made law can be broken whereas the law of nature cannot. What is right and just produces the law and is the basis for law in the first place.


  1. Foam Penguin says:

    Wasn’t it Weev who said that all of America’s best citizens are in prison?

  2. thordaddy says:

    The First Law of white man’s nature is that “it” strives towards objective Supremacy.

    Not only is white man attempting to defy this law at nearly every instance (seeking “equality” instead), he is also attempting to annihilate his very nature from even existing in this world.

    Madness ensues…

    1. NotTheDude says:

      Why is that only the white man’s law again?

      1. thordaddy says:

        You relativists really ought to broaden your reality if the one you have concocted is so stifling.

        It’s white man’s First Law of His Nature because white man declared it so and non-white man has made no such declaration as far as I know. But, I am not worried about being proved wrong on that point.

  3. crow says:

    Another Swanson classic. A long time coming, but invariably, worth the wait.
    Sacred Law FTW (:>

    1. crow says:

      The Sacred Law, by the way, is law that is directly connected with Dharma, aka: Reality and the way it works.
      True law is order based upon Dharma.

      When Dharma is lost track-of, law becomes a completely arbitrary thing, based upon reaction, rather than truth.

  4. LoreTek says:

    Very well put.

    This is one of those issues that’s very hard to put into words, but easy to know what side is good and bad. It is also an issue chock-full of people doing the right thing for the wrong reasons and the wrong thing for the right reasons which is essentially adding unintentional miss-information (and I use that term wearingly) This phenomenon stems from people’s uncanny ability to draw conclusions based not on unbiased holistic reasoning, but on whatever side has a calling line with the highest “knock out factor”. Akin to a debate where A loses because B states a fact that is actually true, but irrelevant, and the audience starts cheering because it is “so true”. It is usually followed up by a twisting of A’s words to make it look like they were arguing against this irrelevant fact to begin with and even if A was correct within the context of the argument they have no chance of recovering. The debate has gone down the rabbit hole so to speak.

    An example is against overpopulation being a part of the strain that is amplifying our problems – they might say “you can fit every single person in the world into the state of Florida, therefore we are not even close to running out of room and over population is not the root of our problems”. Unless you are very careful with your words, you’ve just lost; as any attempt to reject this is going to set you up to be dragged deeper into their trap.

    You will see this argument style a lot used on both side of the political spectrum, either by stupid people that are unknowingly using this almost unbeatable argument style or cynical ones that just want their camp to win at all costs, but it is especially true of the left as it is their bread and butter. It does absolutely nothing for the issue at hand, detracts from all meaning, and makes both sides look dull, one for using it, and the other for being forced to respond, it’s quite brilliant actually.

    It’s my growing opinion that this is why we are looking at a political geography that we have now – the nation, its issues, party platforms, institutions, curriculum, and the overall way we go about doing things, has “gone down the rabbit hole”. Everyone if forced to take dull positions, the wrong one for the right reasons, or the right one for the wrong reasons; everyone is wrong, everyone is dull, and anyone even making an honest attempt to cut through the nonsense is the “delusional one”.

    I wish it had a name, I really do. I’m just going to call it the rabbit hole argument style or theory and it can go up with my useless words are useless theory.


    The Bundy issue is no different. Many say something like, “Bundy is a tax evader, he is a criminal, and therefore anything the Federal Government does is correct”. Bundy says the “Federal government doesn’t own the land” which is technically wrong. And other supporters say the laws were illegal, which is technically not true. Most would get so lost and default to the Federal camp’s position. It is the law after all.

    The reality is, the Federal Government has shown a willingness to use the wording of their own laws, meant to conserve and protect the fair use of public land for any and all reasonable use, for their own agenda by twisting them around. Sure the laws were legal and yes, he technically should have paid the fees; he did what he had to do though and had he paid them he would have been eventually steamrolled and we would have never know. The Federal Government didn’t force the issue for 20 years – it was not about the money – and when they suddenly came out with some tortoise endangerment that was baseless as they had coexisted fine for 100+ year, it was also Bundy’s right to a peaceful protest those laws – a fact lost when he is a “tax evading criminal”.

    But when you have a Federal agency, by virtue of being Federal is supposed to protect the Life and Liberty of an American, which seized his land, destroyed the desert environment with cattle trucks, killed and buried any cattle they couldn’t deal with, as well as smashed one of those ominous tortoise burrow themselves; and all they can say is “No, they are the domestic terrorists! They had women at the rally, they were going to use them as human shields, and I think I saw a gun, probably automatic!” without any proof and all because he survived the downsize and didn’t bankrupt or sell out like the rest of the ranchers in the area, you really have to wonder who is being extreme or aggressive. It is exactly like a Gang demanding money for “protection” – from the gang. I think there is a name for that as well?

    The only real argument against Bundy is that the Native Americans owned that land first so he can’t claim sole usage rights. Surprisingly, I would be willing to bet that any still sane Native American would see a man, living off the land with respect, to provide for his country, paying his local fees, and then see a Federal Government imposing their own fines, and harassing other families the point of bankruptcy so they could obtain the land for themselves, and think, “hmm this looks familiar”.

    So maybe the Bundy crew got a little overzealous by standing in formation, but nothing is wrong with organizing in a peaceful protest to demonstrate your resolve. In fact it is protected by our Constitution of the United States of America, and so is the guarantee of a Republican government, it is not a democracy, BLM cannot just “listen to the people”, and that’s why they backed down. It shows a lot more competence than banners and nursery rhyme chants coming from leftist protesters that actively engage in riots with police, and until a BLM agent is fired upon first and continues to act so violently and recklessly I will always take the side of the citizen, and so did the State, rightfully so.

    The moral of this story is that when normal internet users break on average of 3 felonies a day just streaming content and copying information, worth in excess of Bundy’s tax evasion in IP rights. The mantra “if you don’t have anything to hide, you have nothing to worry about” is a sham. The truer statement is to say, most of Citizens of the USA are felons in the eyes of today’s law, and you don’t have anything to worry about, until the Government wants to take something from you. And when that day comes, you can rely on a perfectly dug hole to show up around you where your supporters will magically look stupid and the ones against you are fanatics with the law on their side.

    - The picture is another great one too, they never get enough credit, haha. A perfect example of two separate rabbit holes meeting underground somewhere and getting into a battle of wrong v. wrong.

Leave a Reply

37 queries. 0.571 seconds