In this article I will try to make a distinction between law and justice and show why the state, as we know it, is an absurdity.
The reference to E-gold in the beginning is about an event in 2007, when E-gold, a digital payment system, was persecuted by US authorities, and gold belonging to their customers was simply stolen and handed over to the US government. This was called confiscation, but is nothing else than plain theft. E-gold might have had no other choice than complying, but the whole story is suspect from beginning to end.
No longer actual, the reference to this event might seem out of the place, but I think it still serves well as an illustration, and a good beginning for what follows. You don't need to understand the details of the E-gold affair to understand the essence of this article.
Introduction
The previous trouble with e-gold can serve as an illustration of a more general mechanism - and as an introduction to what I would call the distinction between law and justice.
Apart from the obvious - e-gold would have had to be restructured in a way beyond the reach of USA-authorities (or any other Big Brother of the same disposition), in order to regain its international credibility - it would be worth a moment to consider what happened. The United States government stole the gold that was the “backing” of the e-gold system! (This will never happen with Bitcoin, because it is not “backed” by any tangible asset that can be taken.)
Officially it was about Money Laundering. But what for? What is that? Why? To combat terrorism or organised crime? Not in the least. Real criminals know how to keep or move funds invisibly. A law against "money laundering" is doing nothing against that; it only serves as a means to monitor decent people and to steal their assets.
Just imagine yourself having a state, and you create a law giving you the right to take any money you can get hold on. Then you say that unless the one you took them from can provide convincing evidence that the money is his and that their source is nothing you dislike - then you may keep them! YOU decide what is sufficient evidence, and of course YOU decide which sources you accept as legitimate! In cleartext this is what the US government and its branches (and practically all other governments as well) was and is doing. They took some large e-gold accounts - and note that they were large ones only - and they are taking bank accounts in the same manner, all the time. It is law - but is it justice?
Justice & Law
I would like to define "justice" as simple principles of conduct, which are felt as "fair" by all sane members of a society. (This is no exact definition, and we don't need that here. An intuitive understanding will suffice for now.) Not to kill and not to steal (respect for others' life and property), to keep voluntarily entered agreements... simple things like that. Things that are "just". Violation must give some sort of negative consequence for the offender, a punishment (how or what is beyond the scope of this discussion).
Law should be the formal codification of justice - and how to deal with violations. That's it! That's where it should end! But unfortunately it doesn't. Justice is just a very, very small part of the legal body. Made law is a plaything for the ones who are controlling the State. It is the tool for shaping society, forming it according to the imagination of those who control the process of lawmaking. Instead of "justice", their law expresses "will".
This continually growing "will-based" sphere of law (which is not a part of justice) and the game around the control of that sphere, is commonly known as politics. So ultimately, politics is law growing into areas where it does not belong.
And let's define "crime" as the violation of "justice", not of "law", law is often used to justify crime.
What does the world need? A reduction of law to genuine justice only, and more or less an elimination of politics.
Public State & Private State
What is said above, applies mainly to "public states", which include almost all states of the world today. A public state is what most people today mean with a "state".
For a "private state", the conditions are a bit different, at least in theory. A state or community is "private", if it is "owned" by a lord or a ruler of any description, on a basis that is equal to that of personal property. The "will" of the ruler then equals a private party's right to dispose of his genuine property in any way he chooses. Unfortunately, this "will" was once mixed with the application of justice, and both came confusingly to be called law, until most people could no longer see the difference.
A few small genuinely private states exist today, albeit "concealed" as autonomous areas within the borders of regular public states. During history, however, there have been periods and places where private states were the standard. Indeed, there is good reason to believe that the concept of state originally meant a "private" state, and that all early states were the personal property of an individual, a family, or a group of clearly defined individuals - completely on the basis of private ownership. The public state then inherited these "private" features, failing to realise that its foundation is of a completely different nature - a nature that does not even theoretically justify laws based on will, in any form whatsoever.
On Defining Problems
Often supposedly intelligent people claim that the present problem with the Middle East is that there is no tradition of a secular state. Assuming that they mean "one problem" rather than "the problem", it is still a statement by a mind blocked by its own bias. It is more likely that the problem with the situation they refer to is that outsiders are trying to enforce an order - a form of state - which is not in accordance with local tradition, or evolving naturally from it.
Without any specific reference to the actual situation in the Middle East or elsewhere; changing the perspective, changes the definition of a problem, and finding a correct definition is essential in order to be able to solve it. Otherwise attempted solutions will just add new complications. (Middle East is a good example of that!)
Perspective flexibility is a precondition for good problem solving. That may be the reason why politicians are never solving any problems, but are so good at causing them!
Secular - Religious
What is it with a public secular state that would make it superior to a religious one? In my opinion - nothing. The distinction is quite meaningless and misses the essential point.
A religious state is based on the set of values of a certain religion. It can be any religion.
A secular state is based on a set of values called human rights, democracy, liberalism, socialism (or any other political "ism"), feminism, equality, etc.
The secular state claims to be based on "Reason", and by this "Reason" it would be superior to "mere beliefs". Yet the "Reason" is just another sort of "God" by which it tries to replace others.
While it is rarely realised by its "believers", secularism too is based on belief only, a belief that has no higher dignity than that of any established religion. Just avoiding (or privatising) the concept of "God", does not give secularism a higher level of reality.
Secular or religious, the public state keeps its fundamental character. While it is good or acceptable to live in for those sharing its set of values, it is terrible for those who do not. So maybe the problem is not whether it is secular or religious, but something inherent in the public state itself.
The Public State
What makes a state public?
That it is vague in ownership. It is owned by no one, or maybe we should say everyone (of its inhabitants, or citizens). The difference is minute since everybody's business is nobody's business. It expects and requires each and every subject's participation in its institutions, and in the society it controls and designs. It is a state by everyone, for everyone, whether you want to be a part of it or not. It is hard to escape. The inhabitants are forced into its institutions.
Note that it is supposed to be for everyone, that is a part of the definition of a public state. But since the state itself embraces a doctrine, or a set of values - it can never be for those who do not share its ideological base, but rather against them.
Thus the concept of a public state has lost its "raison d'être", the reason for its existence.
Related articles:
Either Health Freedom or Slavery - A Little of Each is not Possible
Private & Public – Is it Justified With a Free Press When Privacy is Outlawed?
Nation & State, Art & Culture; How confusion serves a purpose
Discrimination & The Legal Fiction of Private Ownership
Antiterrorism: Fight a Monster and Become a Worse Monster
Copyright © 2021 Meleonymica. All Rights Reserved.
Here you find all my writings about privacy & antibigbrotherism, and here about philosophy.
You find all my writings on Read.Cash, sorted by topic, here.
