Our "Rule of Law" is flawed at the core, and yes Evil !

By John H. Webster

When someone "Breaks the Law" that fact alone does not give the system the ethical right to violate the rights of that person with fines and incarceration. Laws enacted must not overstep logical ethical restrictions.

Where the nature of the act committed does not free the System from its ethical restraints yet the System proceeds anyway to dole out the punishment described by the "Law" then that System and that Law are unethical and Evil. A major class of these bad laws are of the "We don't like your kind so we will fine or punish you" type. In essence these laws are enforcing the Tyranny of the Majority.

Good Laws: The first class of ethical laws involves the response of the System to acts of violence, killing or stealing. The person that makes the conscience choice to do these acts violates the Rights of another and by doing so automatically gives up their own Rights. Since the perpetrator no longer has their Rights, the System can pretty much do whatever it wants to them.

The second class of ethical laws involves the response of the System to unintentional or accidental damage that one person has done to another person or to that other person's property (or even to Public property). While the person that caused the damage has not lost their Rights, the System does have the right to force him/her to compensate the damaged party for their losses. Normally this would all be handled in a Civil Court and not involve incarceration.

The third class of ethical laws comes from the role that has been delegated to our Government to manage Public property. Because of this our Government has the ethical right to make laws that place reasonable restrictions on a person's use of Public property so that its value to others is not diminished. These laws could go so far as to require users of Public property to pay a fee or tax for that use. That money would then be used to maintain that property (such as Public roads).

The obvious, intuitive and natural punishment that would be metered out to someone that fails to abide by those laws and restrictions on the use of Public property is that for a period of time they would not be allowed the use of that Public property (in effect they would be under "House Arrest"). If they then violated that restriction and used Public property anyway they would be trespassing and the punishment for that could involve real incarceration.

How our Laws went Bad: One of the main ways is in those laws and restrictions being universally enforcing even though they ethically should only apply on Public property. For example the public may legitimately decide that it doesn't want the solicitation or acts of prostitution on Public property, or gambling or smoking or the use of drugs on Public property, and it could ethically enforce those restrictions. But it has no ethical right or jurisdiction over those same acts when done on private property.

The same goes for laws restricting conduct on Public streets and parks. Eventually those laws were extended to private places or businesses that only had Public Access. So now the same code of conduct that applies to people in public parks also is enforced on patrons in completely private buildings such as in an x-rated movie theater.

Essentially the Public Majority is saying "We make the Laws and we don't like you so we will make your actions illegal". But regardless of what the Government might want us to believe these laws have no ethical jurisdiction off of Publicly owned property and lands.

Many of these "We don't like your kind" laws fall into the Enforced Fairness category. This includes laws that mandate Rent Control, minimum wage, and non-discrimination in housing and employment. While these items should be "on the table" during free market negotiations they are Evil when actually mandated by Government.

One of the most outrageous examples of "We don't like your kind" law is that against the mere possession of child pornography. First the definition of child pornography is so all encompassing so as to even include written fantasies or doodles. And the original pretext of the law was that the consumer of kiddy porn was supposedly funding an industry that abused children to produce its product.

If that was the actual justification then this would be a law of the second type mentioned above where the "punishment" should only be a fine, perhaps a hundred times what the consumer paid for those pictures. That money would then be used to compensation the unintended victims.

But of course there is plenty of free kiddy porn on the Internet and a person caught possessing those pictures is just as "guilty" of violating the law and is sentenced to just as many years in prison. This is true despite the fact that distributing free kiddy porn does not aid this industry.

If you don't believe this just ask the music industry whether or not music bootlegged and distributed free on the Internet helps their music business. The availability of free product can virtually destroy their business.

Since the supposed justification for this Kiddy Porn law doesn't pass logical muster the only reason left is that "We the Public Majority don't like those people who enjoy Child Pornography, so we will put them in jail/prison when we find out who they are".

Members of the Public that supports such a law are ethically equal with the Public that supported the Japanese/Americans being interned in camps during World War II in the United States, or the Germans that supported Hitler's incarceration of the Jews. It is all "Tyranny of the Majority" with no ethical basis.

If Society is just unable to co-exist with a particular person or group of people there is an ethical solution. Membership in a group, such as US citizenship, is co-owned by the individual member and by the group. So ether the member or the group can ethically absolve the relationship without requiring even a reason or justification.

In other words the Public can make any Law it wants but when an individual is found guilty, the punishment has to be of the "either-or" variety. Either he serves the required time in prison OR he loses his citizenship and has to find another country (an actually Free country -- not one where you are only free to fit in with the Majority) that will accept him.