1. Skip to navigation
  2. Skip to content
  3. Skip to sidebar
Source link: http://archive.mises.org/18811/classificationism-legislation-copyright/

Classificationism, Legislation, Copyright

October 25, 2011 by

From my C4SIF post:

Ideally law ought to be developed in a decentralized fashion by judges, juries, arbitral tribunals applying developed legal principles based on libertarian ideas about justice and property rights, to new disputes and fact situations. ((See my articles “Legislation and Law in a Free Society” and “Legislation and the Discovery of Law in a Free Society.”)) This was the basic model of the two grand legal systems in history: the Roman law, and the English common law. Better yet if the state were not involved, but in any case, an decentralized, caselaw, organic system is to be preferred.

But we have a system now dominated by legislation, by statutory law. The Roman law was codified legislatively by Napoleon and others, resulting at first in elegant civil codes enacted by legislation and backed by the force of the state. This enshrined legislation as the supreme source of law–legal positivism. ((See my post Logical and Legal Positivism.)) These are the continental legal systems, the so-called civil law. In the meantime even the relatively propertarian and elegant civil codes have been swamped by a deluge of inelegant artificial and special-interest favoring legislation. Meanwhile the English common law has also been gradually submerged in a flood of English statutes. The US English-influenced common law system has also become steadily dominated by state and federal statutes. This should be no surprise given that the fount of our law is the Constitution, itself nothing but a statute, a piece of legislation. Sure, the Constitution as legislation is broader and more general and aspirational than most modern specialized statutes, which means that it is vague and ambiguous and subject to arbitrary interpretation–and since it is the state’s courts that interpret it, this means that it will be construed over time to grant more and more power to the state. ((See John Hasnas, The Myth of the Rule of Law.)) Don’t fool yourself: the Constitution is nothing special, and is not libertarian. It’s just a cover for a centralizing power grab. ((See Rockwell on Hoppe on the Constitution as Expansion of Government Power.))

Read more>>

{ 3 comments }

Loki October 26, 2011 at 5:31 am

i’m not sure if i’m mistaken about this but i’ve seen it in numerous places, the term ‘Law’ means ‘binding agreed contract terms’. in equity, in commerce, and unfortunately to a lesser degree, common law (which as you point out has been swamped by statutes and acts) no contract has force (law) without proof of voluntary consent and equal consideration. it’s my position that the definition of statute should be borne in mind:

statute [ˈstætjuːt]
n
1. (Law)
a. an enactment of a legislative body expressed in a formal document
b. this document
2. (Law) a permanent rule made by a body or institution for the government of its internal affairs
[from Old French estatut, from Late Latin statūtum, from Latin statuere to set up, decree, ultimately from stāre to stand]
Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003

notice that only the second definition makes any mention of jurisdiction? the random house dictionary also specifies only in the same point definition – that it is the INTERNAL rules of a corporation or other ‘entity’ ‘person’ ‘body’ etc. thus it only lawfully applicable to the employees, trustees, assigns, agents and representatives of the corporation.

i have pretty much got nothing to lose so i’m now pushing forward this argument vehemently and today it just went to the next level, i got arrested for not having registration and third party registration for my little sachs madass 50cc motorcycle – ok, i got arrested because about a week ago i got nabbed by (what i consider) an unlawful checkpoint (registration checkpoint) and i hadn’t acted yet upon it (i had an affidavit sitting in my bag that i was just about to have sworn and filed).

it turned out to be an opportunity – i had written a quite combative affidavit but then last night talking to my sister she really drove home the point about how combative i am being, and how true power is always calm and full of certitude, i gutted the affidavit and simply boiled it down to – produce proof of contract for which i am being charged, if no proof is presented within 10 days, i will serve default notice, and then, and anyone thereafter presuming to prosecute me for these unsubstantiated contracts will have commercial liens filed against them personally, in their private, commercial capacity.

the thing that has really come home to me in this incident is the maxim ‘equity aids the vigilant, not those who slumber on their rights’. up to today, i have been quite reluctant to be up front and tell the law officers exactly what’s going on as i see it. the ironic thing is that the essential point of my argument (that there is no proof that i agreed to be bound by the statutes of my government, all documents claiming to grant that authority were not signed by me or were not explicitly binding me to the totality of the government). and i had pretty much my whole twenties without a car, because my income has been so poor that i wouldn’t have been able to afford registration, insurance, the actual vehicle, the cost of maintenance, and fuel. so i didn’t. i’ve probably driven unlicensed or unregistered for easily 90% of the time i’ve been on the road and i just have come to the end of my tolerance for being forced to pay money to not be harassed by police. a contract in which i pay to not be harassed, what is that? a racket? i think it might be.

anyway, since you are a lawyer, stephan, you might be interested to read the affidavit i have filed. i just want to make one comment, i intended this to be for the first incident of being detained and served a notice to appear, but last night i rewrote it, and due to the way i wrote it, it was instantly applicable and so i went straight from the police station after being processed and printed etc, to the registry of the magistrates court i was told to appear, and since the spirit (substance) of what i wanted to do with my first charges i filed it. i don’t know how much commercial law you are familiar with but i believe that this: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rGOuOegvuQcckTzT-zoZ4nKmf7a5q-SjX4D7jxiYq2A/edit constitutes a commercial affidavit, including terms for rebuttal, a time limit, and a promise to prosecute if my affidavit stands after the period specified. i’m more than happy to have any comments and especially from anyone who would properly be described as _sui juris_

Robert October 26, 2011 at 1:23 pm

I’m curious to know how that turns out. I’m certainly not a lawyer, but I dont think the government needs your consent to impose laws upon you. Please keep us updated and good luck! :-)

Loki October 26, 2011 at 4:47 pm

if they can impose obligations on us without contract that is slavery. here’s the definition in the australian federal ‘criminal code act 1995′:

Division 270-Slavery, sexual servitude and deceptive recruiting

270.1 Definition of slavery

For the purposes of this Division, slavery is the condition of
a person over whom any or all of the powers attaching to the right
of ownership are exercised, including where such a condition
results from a debt or contract made by the person.

liability and debt are pretty much synonyms and a contract to be someone’s slave is not enforceable and will land the party claiming such ownership rights. when someone detains me without a contract for which such detention is a duly accepted condition, as far as i’m concerned they are presuming to exercise the rights of ownership over my right of free movement, a primary element of ownership.

also note the use of the word ‘includes via contract or due to debt’ that means ONLY via contract or debt the application of ownership rights over a natural person, but implicitly enslavement always involves a claim of debt and a contract of ownership not voluntarily consented to.

i have served notice, and i will verify this morning that it has been passed on to a magistrate, and i want the magistrate’s name so i know who to draft the lien i will file against them for stealing my motorcycle, my boot knife, plus charges of violating contract (my terms for this are $1mil per count of violation of my rights), the former two theft charges will be backed by the in-force criminal code (not the one i quoted above, the queensland criminal code act 1895 or something like that) and the penalty will be of the legislated monetary amount. i have to be careful exactly how i apply this lien because obviously a malicious lien is criminal, and the followup to the lien is a criminal complaint, and i think after that step the next is to sue.

a little known fact is that magistrates courts are essentially commercial jurisdiction. they go straight to summary judgement because the plaintiff does not challenge the contractual obligations, and on top of this they presume to construe trust in which they are the controlling interest, the administrator or executor of your estate, meaning they have standing as well as cause because we don’t express the matter – that we can appoint ourself expressly as the executors of our estate, which supersedes their presumption, and that we can demand proof of our voluntary execution of the contract which they are claiming. since if they cannot prove we volunteered to be bound by their statutes (all statutes are internal to organisations and you have to be contracted for service to be liable) they could then be charged with attempting to enslave, as a contract entered into involuntarily is a violation of the law of contract, and when this contract entails any arbitrary use of force to compel obedience it is by definition slavery.

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: