This is sort of an open letter to Marc Stevens and sort of my own musings on the current forced legal system.  By “forced”, I mean that it’s forced upon you, like it or not.  I disagree wholeheartedly with a great majority of the pieces of the forced legal system as well as the act of forcing it upon people, but below is my fleshing out of this conundrum and an answer to Marc Stevens.

Up front, I’m not an enemy of Marc Stevens and I wouldn’t even say that I disagree with him.  In fact, he was born on the land labeled “Buffalo, New York”, as was I, which proves that he must have some genius in him.  His opinion on government is one commonly referred to as “anarchy”, however that term is avoided, probably due to the unfair and inaccurate image that it conjures up in people’s minds.  Personally, I picture men wearing all black outfits, ski-masks, and black military boots throwing flaming objects through windows and stealing the loot.  In reality, he stands against violence.  His term for anarchy?  A “voluntary society”. That makes sense.  Unfortunately, this idea, for me, gets filed right up there with the Venus Project.  I love the idea but I don’t see how it can actually ever take place, given human nature.  I’m not here to say he’s crazy.  I’m here to say that I wish his idea were doable.

Moving right along…

The ongoing question posed by Marc Stevens pertains to the applicability of the US Constitution and codes of the State of ______.   “What evidence did the prosecution show proving that the US Constitution and the codes of the State of _______ are applicable to me/my client?”  The responses that ensue are never satisfactory or even close to it.  There is no good answer.

So, as any good author (Marc Stevens, that is) or radio host should do, he caused me to really think.  This is philosophical, isn’t it?  Why is the world how the world is?  What proof is there that the current way is the best way?  What if we choose not to participate in this societal norm?  Is that benefit worth the cost?

So, let’s be intellectually honest here.  If someone is saying that a law applies to you then there should be proof of it, but is there?  Could you be forced onto trial for something that harmed nobody and you found to be completely acceptable?  Rightfully, I’d like to say no, but that’s not what is currently happening.

Marc’s question “what facts do you rely on to prove that the US Constitution and codes of the State of _____ are applicable to me?”, is a provocative question that cuts through the assumptions and exposes the nature of the system that we call “the legal system”.  So seriously, what evidence is there?  Any facts at all?  After listening to his show for maybe a year now, I haven’t heard an answer yet.  Well, I’d like to take a crack at it.  It might not be the answer you’re looking for, but it’s an answer.

My Answer

No law is automatically applicable to anyone, except for the laws of physics.  I can argue with a cop, but it’s hard to argue with inertia.  If you take a turn too fast on the side of a mountain, you’re gonna die.  Physics.  That, and laws like it, are the only laws which can be proven with facts.  The laws of man don’t have that same property, but it seems that Marc is asking for it.  He wants proof that there is some outside, independent and verifiable evidence, that proves that he must live by a certain set of rules.  That does not exist for anything.  Is there factual evidence that you must not steal or murder?  Not really.  It’s something that we can agree to, but we cannot agree that there are facts that prove that to be any more than our preference.

The bottom line is that laws, rules, codes, statutes, etc., are applicable to anyone that the applier can get away with applying them to.  That’s the unavoidable truth.  I can philosophically disagree with all of it, but the way things really unfold is called “reality”.  In this cruel place called “reality”, groups of people who claim to be upholding goodness, have standards and consequences that they will apply to you because there are enough people who can support them in doing so.  You can fight them if you choose, but they are prepared for that and have conjured up enough support and force to make you pay anyway, and pay an added penalty if your fight against them is too bothersome to them.

Codes are only applicable because they are applied.  To personalize it:  The code is applicable to you because it’s going to be applied to you, like it or not.  And put another way, man-made laws may or may not be applicable, they are applied.  Yes, it’s through force.  If someone has a better way it can only occur when that person convinces a large enough majority that the new way is correct and then the other way can be discarded.

Every time the code is applied to anyone, it’s proof that it’s applicable.  It’s basically de facto.  Since there is no independent outside standard then anyone can make the standard.  Once it’s set, it’s hard to make people realize that the standard was homemade.  It has become their reality and they buy it as an unavoidable fact.  That sucks for those of us who want freedom from tyrants and oppression, but it’s reality.

I hope Marc can convince the masses that a voluntary society is best but it’s quite a tide to fight and their brainwashing is powerful.  I don’t see how this fight can be won given the current set of circumstances we have to work with.  Don’t count me as one of the nay-sayers.  Just count me as someone trying to articulate reality.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.