# Divisions along Rule of Law versus Criminal Rule **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 4, 2015, 9:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/divisions-along-rule-of-law-versus-criminal-rule/727009 "2015-08-04T21:07:39Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2015, 3:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/divisions-along-rule-of-law-versus-criminal-rule/727009/141 "2015-08-08T03:58:02Z")
Josf looks deserving of an entry in the table I compiled [here.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=18360972&postcount=1617) ---
**Author:** ![DrFidelius](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/drfidelius/32/3447_2.png) [@DrFidelius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrFidelius)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2015, 12:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/divisions-along-rule-of-law-versus-criminal-rule/727009/142 "2015-08-08T12:32:26Z")
I feel like this is a very long shaggy dog story leading up to our new friend saying this is why he shouldn’t be arrested for not paying taxes. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2015, 2:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/divisions-along-rule-of-law-versus-criminal-rule/727009/143 "2015-08-08T14:17:11Z")
> [@DrFidelius](#): > > I feel like this is a very long shaggy dog story leading up to our new friend saying this is why he shouldn’t be arrested for not paying taxes. I fear that as well, but I would welcome the opportunity to educate/debate a “sovereign citizen.” At some point, however, he needs to get down to the meat of his specific complaint and stop rattling off these ill-defined or made up terms. For example: “Criminal Rule” I have been a student of history, went to law school, and practice law. I have never heard this term. It is not in cited case law or constitutional history. So, maybe he is smarter than me and has found a term that I have never heard of. His attempts to define it amount to no more than “rule by criminals against innocent people.” Okay, well, who are these criminals and who are these innocent people? When he tries to flesh that out it seems that the criminals are those with whom he disagrees and the innocent people are he and his ilk. And the “Rule of Law.” I have heard that term. It is the idea that there is a structure under which disputes are settled instead of people having gunfights in the streets over these disputes. The OP characterizes it as some competing system to “Criminal Rule” which no longer exists because apparently we had the Rule of Law under the Declaration of Independence and Articles of Confederation, then something something and now we are under Criminal Rule and all laws are invalid for some reason. I would suppose that since we are under this dictatorship of Criminal Rule, then my state murder laws were invalidly passed and we must empty the prisons. But I’m not sure because any attempt to flesh out this position is met with more words and terms that are jumbled. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2015, 4:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/divisions-along-rule-of-law-versus-criminal-rule/727009/144 "2015-08-08T16:56:56Z")
> [@DrFidelius](#): > > I feel like this is a very long shaggy dog story leading up to our new friend saying this is why he shouldn’t be arrested for not paying taxes. He had me at “jury” (post 14). Then I followed his link to Dr Ed Rivera (“Hi everrryboddy!”) in post 70 and his thesis that George Washington had two different offices: President of the United States of America (legal) and President of the United States (fraudulent! criminal!!) Now I’m a believer! ---
**Author:** ![Josf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/d78d45/32.png) [@Josf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Josf)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2015, 1:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/divisions-along-rule-of-law-versus-criminal-rule/727009/145 "2015-08-09T01:08:58Z")
11If I had the time I would answer every question that is a challenge to someone in one division made by someone in the opposing division. 1. Division = Rule of Law a. Matthew 7:12 b. Golden Rule c. Due process of law such as trial by jury according to the common law 2. Division = Criminal Rule a. Might makes right b. Survival of the fittest c. Despotism d. Tyranny e. Organized crime without the color of law f. Organized crime under the color of law g. Majority Rule I do not have unlimited time. I can answer what I consider to be the most valid points I’ve read in the words that I think constitute debate. Human Action offers his opinion once again: > [@](#): > > The rules were simple. Congress gave this mandate, via resolution: > > Resolved that in the opinion of Congress it is expedient that on the second Monday in May next a Convention of delegates who shall have been appointed by the several states be held at Philadelphia for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation and reporting to Congress and the several legislatures such alterations and provisions therein as shall when agreed to in Congress and confirmed by the states render the federal constitution adequate to the exigencies of Government & the preservation of the Union. > > This convention was held; they drafted a radical revision to the Articles; which were confirmed by the states, in the form of the Constitution. Note that rather than being “discarded”, some aspects of the Articles remained, post-revision, such as the prohibition on states entering into treaties. It is an opinion of someone on one side of an obvious division to claim that congress can do whatever they want, make up any rule they want, as those elected to congress move along from situation to situation, in time and place, such as a complete change in government from the federation that documented an acknowledgement of trial by jury according to the common law, formed a document (a document I can call a statute as I am not the only one calling it a statute) called a Declaration of Independence, order the end of the slave trade, form Articles of Confederation, prosecute a defensive war, receive the surrender from the criminal army of aggression, and after all that then a new group in congress claims to have the authority to offer the State legislatures a completely different government. Key words: “…sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation…” That can mean anything including this: “…they drafted a radical revision to the Articles.” The expressed purposes are said to be rules governing the amending process, but the “rules” governing those who wrote those rules governing the amending process are either dictatorial or not, and if not then it is possible that the rules remain inside Rule of Law. Before going on there may be an easier way to accurately account for who is on which side. Those who use the word “democracy” include those on both sides. Those on the Criminal Rule side (Tyranny, Dictatorship, Organized Crime under the color of law, etc.) are apt to claim that democracy means rule (criminal rule) by the majority (the majority of criminals who rule) and said version of democracy has been said to be (by analogy) two wolves and a sheep deciding what is for dinner. That is not the meaning of democracy according to those who offered competitive versions of Rule of Law in Athens Greece. Explain in the following link and quotes: [http://www.freenation.org/a/f41l1.html](http://www.freenation.org/a/f41l1.html) > [@](#): > > To begin with, neither the Council nor the Assembly consisted of elected representatives. The members of the Council were selected not by election but by sortition — i.e., by lot. In other words, the 500 Councillors were selected randomly from the (male) citizen population. (And no Councillor could serve more than two terms.) > > The practice of selecting government officials randomly (and the Athenians developed some fairly sophisticated mechanical gadgets to ensure that the selection really was random, and to make cheating extremely difficult) is one of the most distinctive features of the Athenian constitution. We think of electoral politics as the hallmark of democracy; but elections were almost unknown at Athens, because they were considered paradigmatically anti-democratic. Proposals to replace sortition with election were always condemned as moves in the direction of oligarchy. > > Why? Well, as the Athenians saw it, under an electoral system no one can obtain political office unless he is already famous: this gives prominent politicians an unfair advantage over the average person. Elections, they thought, favor those wealthy enough to bribe the voters, powerful enough to intimidate the voters, flashy enough to impress the voters, or clever enough to deceive the voters. The most influential political leaders were usually Horsemen anyway, thanks to their social prominence and the political following they could obtain by dispensing largesse among the masses. (One politician, Kimon, won the loyalty of the poor by leaving his fields and orchards unfenced, inviting anyone who was hungry to take whatever he needed.) If seats on the Council had been filled by popular vote, the Horsemen would have disproportionately dominated it — just as, today, Congress is dominated by those who can afford expensive campaigns, either through their own resources or through wealthy cronies. Or, to take a similar example, in the United States women have had the vote for over half a century, and yet, despite being a majority of the population, they represent only a tiny minority of elected officials. Obviously, the persistence of male dominance in the economic and social sphere has translated into women mostly voting for male candidates. The Athenians guessed, probably rightly, that the analogous prestige of the upper classes would lead to commoners mostly voting for aristocrats. > > That is why the Athenians saw elections as an oligarchical rather than a democratic phenomenon. Above all, the Athenians feared the prospect of government officials forming a privileged class with separate interests of their own. Through reliance on sortition, random selection by lot, the Council could be guaranteed to represent a fair cross-section of the Athenian people — a kind of proportional representation, as it were. Random selection ensured that those selected would be representatives of the people as a whole, whereas selection by vote made those selected into mere representatives of the majority. Complaints about my writing are not relevant when meanings are offered by other people in other words. Reinforcements a found in another link and another quote: [http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/documents/1786-1800/thomas-paine-the-rights-of-man/text.php](http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/documents/1786-1800/thomas-paine-the-rights-of-man/text.php) > [@](#): > > What is called a republic is not any particular form of government. It is wholly characteristical of the purport, matter or object for which government ought to be instituted, and on which it is to be employed, Res-Publica, the public affairs, or the public good; or, literally translated, the public thing. It is a word of a good original, referring to what ought to be the character and business of government; and in this sense it is naturally opposed to the word monarchy, which has a base original signification. It means arbitrary power in an individual person; in the exercise of which, himself, and not the res-publica, is the object. > > Every government that does not act on the principle of a Republic, or in other words, that does not make the res-publica its whole and sole object, is not a good government. Republican government is no other than government established and conducted for the interest of the public, as well individually as collectively. It is not necessarily connected with any particular form, but it most naturally associates with the representative form, as being best calculated to secure the end for which a nation is at the expense of supporting it. > > Various forms of government have affected to style themselves a republic. Poland calls itself a republic, which is an hereditary aristocracy, with what is called an elective monarchy. Holland calls itself a republic, which is chiefly aristocratical, with an hereditary stadtholdership. But the government of America, which is wholly on the system of representation, is the only real Republic, in character and in practice, that now exists. Its government has no other object than the public business of the nation, and therefore it is properly a republic; and the Americans have taken care that this, and no other, shall always be the object of their government, by their rejecting everything hereditary, and establishing governments on the system of representation only. Those who have said that a republic is not a form of government calculated for countries of great extent, mistook, in the first place, the business of a government, for a form of government; for the res-publica equally appertains to every extent of territory and population. And, in the second place, if they meant anything with respect to form, it was the simple democratical form, such as was the mode of government in the ancient democracies, in which there was no representation. The case, therefore, is not, that a republic cannot be extensive, but that it cannot be extensive on the simple democratical form; and the question naturally presents itself, What is the best form of government for conducting the Res-Publica, or the Public Business of a nation, after it becomes too extensive and populous for the simple democratical form? It cannot be monarchy, because monarchy is subject to an objection of the same amount to which the simple democratical form was subject. The formation of the original voluntary federation was in direct response to the war of aggression (a crime) perpetrated by the British. Representatives formed a federation and that is documented with a Declaration of Independence, the first Statute (or whatever you want to call it), and it clearly states the duty of free people while the document serves as an indictment concerning the crimes perpetrated by the aggressors that cause the action in defense. The action in defense is the formation of a federation, by representatives, not by so called Majority Rule (whatever that might mean by anyone claiming such a “rule”). So due to time constraints, I can leave that distinction clearly on the debate table. Those on one side (Criminal Rule) claim that the Majority (of criminals) Rule, because they somehow gain the power to do so in point of fact. On the other side are those who form voluntary federations for the mutual defense of everyone being attacked by the criminal attackers, and the modes used by the defenders vary along the lines of Rule of Law; and that is why one of the first things done by the founders founding the voluntary federation were keen on offering testimony crediting trial by jury according to the common law as the law of the land: which is not statutory law, it is moral law. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2015, 1:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/divisions-along-rule-of-law-versus-criminal-rule/727009/146 "2015-08-09T01:59:17Z")
Dude, just pay your fucking taxes. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2015, 12:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/divisions-along-rule-of-law-versus-criminal-rule/727009/147 "2015-08-10T12:56:43Z")
> [@Josf](#): > > 11If I had the time I would answer every question that is a challenge to someone in one division made by someone in the opposing division. > > 1. Division = Rule of Law > a. Matthew 7:12 > b. Golden Rule > c. Due process of law such as trial by jury according to the common law > > 2. Division = Criminal Rule > a. Might makes right > b. Survival of the fittest > c. Despotism > d. Tyranny > e. Organized crime without the color of law > f. Organized crime under the color of law > g. Majority Rule > > I do not have unlimited time. I can answer what I consider to be the most valid points I’ve read in the words that I think constitute debate. I reject your divisions; majority rule is in no way “criminal rule”. > [@Josf](#): > > Human Action offers his opinion once again: > > It is an opinion of someone on one side of an obvious division to claim that congress can do whatever they want, make up any rule they want, as those elected to congress move along from situation to situation, in time and place, such as a complete change in government from the federation that documented an acknowledgement of trial by jury according to the common law, formed a document (a document I can call a statute as I am not the only one calling it a statute) called a Declaration of Independence, order the end of the slave trade, form Articles of Confederation, prosecute a defensive war, receive the surrender from the criminal army of aggression, and after all that then a new group in congress claims to have the authority to offer the State legislatures a completely different government. I’ve never claimed that Congress could “do whatever they want”. If you’re going to engage in absurd strawmen, then I’ve no interest in continuing. Congress certainly had to the power to “offer the state legislatures a completely different government”, see Article 13: And the Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State. More importantly, the states have and have always had the power to make whatever sort of union they can agree on. The federal government was created by the states, not the other way 'round. > [@Josf](#): > > Key words: “…sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation…” > > That can mean anything including this: “…they drafted a radical revision to the Articles.” > > The expressed purposes are said to be rules governing the amending process, but the “rules” governing those who wrote those rules governing the amending process are either dictatorial or not, and if not then it is possible that the rules remain inside Rule of Law. They are not dictatorial. Note that then were voted on at the convention, then again by each state’s convention. > [@Josf](#): > > Before going on there may be an easier way to accurately account for who is on which side. > > Those who use the word “democracy” include those on both sides. > > Those on the Criminal Rule side (Tyranny, Dictatorship, Organized Crime under the color of law, etc.) are apt to claim that democracy means rule (criminal rule) by the majority (the majority of criminals who rule) and said version of democracy has been said to be (by analogy) two wolves and a sheep deciding what is for dinner. > > That is not the meaning of democracy according to those who offered competitive versions of Rule of Law in Athens Greece. > > Explain in the following link and quotes: > [The Athenian](http://www.freenation.org/a/f41l1.html) I’ll pass on rule-by-lot; there are a number of drawbacks which go unmentioned in your article. For example, the Councillors have no incentive to represent the people’s interests, rather than using their office purely for their own gain. > [@Josf](#): > > Complaints about my writing are not relevant when meanings are offered by other people in other words. Oh, I can still complain; for example, about the sheer number of topics you newly introduce with each post. Are we to stop and debate Athenian democracy now? > [@Josf](#): > > Reinforcements a found in another link and another quote: > [Text \< Thomas Paine - The Rights of Man (1791-1792) \< 1786-1800 \< Documents \< American History From Revolution To Reconstruction and beyond](http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/documents/1786-1800/thomas-paine-the-rights-of-man/text.php) I agree that monarchy is incompatible with democracy…I wasn’t aware that this was controversial. Not even monarchists claim this. > [@Josf](#): > > The formation of the original voluntary federation was in direct response to the war of aggression (a crime) perpetrated by the British. Representatives formed a federation and that is documented with a Declaration of Independence, the first Statute (or whatever you want to call it), and it clearly states the duty of free people while the document serves as an indictment concerning the crimes perpetrated by the aggressors that cause the action in defense. The action in defense is the formation of a federation, by representatives, not by so called Majority Rule (whatever that might mean by anyone claiming such a “rule”). The adoption of the Constitution wasn’t pure majority rule, either… > [@Josf](#): > > So due to time constraints, I can leave that distinction clearly on the debate table. > > Those on one side (Criminal Rule) claim that the Majority (of criminals) Rule, because they somehow gain the power to do so in point of fact. I again reject your divisions. I am not on a “criminal rule” side. > [@Josf](#): > > On the other side are those who form voluntary federations for the mutual defense of everyone being attacked by the criminal attackers, and the modes used by the defenders vary along the lines of Rule of Law; and that is why one of the first things done by the founders founding the voluntary federation were keen on offering testimony crediting trial by jury according to the common law as the law of the land: which is not statutory law, it is moral law. Check the Bill of Rights, trial by jury is right there. What you’re proposing sounds more like a sort of slavery than anything else: a federation is formed by representatives, and for the rest of time, everyone else in the nation is bound by those representatives’ whims. In one doesn’t share your contempt for elections, democracy, and self-determination, it’s an awful system. Further, your system amounts to a belief that your ideas should be the law, by virtue of _your_ belief in their validity. ---
**Author:** ![Josf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/d78d45/32.png) [@Josf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Josf)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2015, 5:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/divisions-along-rule-of-law-versus-criminal-rule/727009/148 "2015-08-10T17:52:12Z")
Human Action: > [@](#): > > I reject your divisions; majority rule is in no way “criminal rule”. 1. Majority rule is in no way “criminal rule” 2. Majority rule is often criminal rule as proven in many ways, many times, many places, for those who care to know, so as to hold the criminals to an accurate accounting of their crimes perpetrated upon their victims. Trying my best to stay within the Topic boundaries, and to utilize my time as best I can, the above is a representation of one division that is opposing another division. To claim that my divisions are rejected misses the point offered; if that is what is being done in the rejection offered by Human Action. I am not alone. There are those who share the division in question (so it is not “my” division exclusively), as people throughout history offer words rejecting so called Majority Rule for reasons that are indictments presented to a candid world where the so called Majority are clearly outside the will of the moral people i.e. the so called Majority perpetrate crimes upon the so called Minority. Majority rule: 1. “Two wolves and a sheep deciding what is for dinner.” Common phrase used today. 2. “Proposals to replace sortition with election were always condemned as moves in the direction of oligarchy.” Common understanding in Athens democracy. 3. “It is a word of a good original, referring to what ought to be the character and business of government; and in this sense it is naturally opposed to the word monarchy, which has a base original signification. It means arbitrary power in an individual person; in the exercise of which, himself, and not the res-publica, is the object.” Thomas Paine - Rights of Man. 4. “That, as to the people or Parliament of England, we had always been independent of them, their restraints on our trade deriving efficacy from our acquiescence only, and not from any rights they possessed of imposing them; and that, so far, our connection had been federal only, and was now dissolved by the commencement of hostilities:” John Adams federal congressman during the formation of the federation in response to criminal British war of aggression. Human Action: > [@](#): > > I reject your divisions; majority rule is in no way “criminal rule”. When the wolves (or human beings acing like wolves) decide to eat the sheep (or extort wealth from the sheeple) they do so because they have the power to do so, even if the sheeple outnumber the wolves. The reference is in agreement with the understanding offered in my own words. So the rejection by Human Action appears to reject more than just my divisions. Republican forms of government (the public thing, or the interests of the whole people) versus (divided from) Majority Rule (so called) are special interest groups (calling themselves the “majority”) working for their special interests at the expense of whoever is paying the special interests whatever is demanded by the special interests. I did not make up, and accept as true, alone, this phrase in common use today, whereby Majority Rule (so called) is said to be “two wolves and a sheep deciding what is for dinner.” Far from rejecting the idea, as other people may do, my view is to accept the idea as a valid idea. At the time of the Athenian democracies the people knew how Oligarchy works to the detriment of the people at large and so democracy, as a rule, was against so called Majority Rule, where it was rejected as a valid method, it was rejected that voters vote so as to cause their special interest groups to gain power over other members of the whole people. That is not my idea, I was not alive at the time, but the idea survives today, and to reject that idea is to reject that ancient idea, not just my idea. To reject the ancient idea, the current idea, or the idea expressed in my words, is an obvious placement of the one doing the rejecting into a division other than the clearly stated idea whereby democracy IS NOT majority rule whereby voters decide what everyone must do, without question. Democracy is not Majority Rule. Human Action: > [@](#): > > I reject your divisions; majority rule is in no way “criminal rule”. I can ask: Is the division being rejected as my division applicable to the Athenian method of maintaining democracy by rejecting Majority Rule, where they did not want Majority Rule because Majority Rule is not democracy, as Majority Rule is a sure fire way to establish Oligarchy, and Oligarchy was rejected for reasons that can be explained in minute detail in the Athenian example, and in the indictment of crimes perpetrated by the British in the Declaration of Independence (first draft) before the slave trade crimes were struck out of the document? I can illustrate my question above with a rewriting of the rejection offered by Human Action. My question is to ask if the rewritten statements can be validated as true or false, in the opinion of Human Action? I reject the Athenian division; majority rule is in no way “Oligarchy.” Is that the same rejection as the original rejection? Human Action: > [@](#): > > I reject your divisions; majority rule is in no way “criminal rule”. or I reject the modern division; majority rule is in no way "two wolves and a sheep deciding what is for “dinner.” or "I reject the Thomas Paine division; majority rule is in no way “monarchy.” or “I reject the John Adams division; majority rule is in no way “anti-federal” (the voluntary federal agreement ends when the monarchy perpetrates crimes that are presented, enumerated, as the monarch is indicted for specific crimes that end the federal nature of the voluntary union.” Does the rejection only apply to my use of the term criminal rule? In other words does Human Action only reject the use of the word “criminal rule” as I use the term in context? If so, then the rejection is purely an argument over semantics, yes, no, or some reasonable other response? ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2015, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/divisions-along-rule-of-law-versus-criminal-rule/727009/149 "2015-08-10T18:33:29Z")
Do you carry a government issued drivers license? ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2015, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/divisions-along-rule-of-law-versus-criminal-rule/727009/150 "2015-08-10T19:02:04Z")
Your argument is based on a number of assumptions, and I don’t share those assumptions. Thus, I don’t argue based on your terms. I do, indeed, reject more than just your “divisions”. Evidently, the Federalist/Anti-Federalist schism was just a prelude to a general, if scattershot, debate about the legitimacy of government. That’s fine, but for it work, I suggest you argue from first principles. Instead, you seem to be doing the opposite, arguing backward - from the Federalists, back to your\* ideas about government and taxation. - Here, as elsewhere, when I say “your ideas” and the like, I don’t mean that they are necessarily _original_ to you, but they are indeed “yours”, as you are the one introducing them to the debate and thus endorsing them. Moving on, then, I’ll answer your specific questions, hopefully as a prelude to a full argument from first principles. Certainly, if you wish to argue for a government based on _your_ conception of morality, with everyone else a slave to _your_ values and ideals, you’ll need a hell of an argument. > [@Josf](#): > > can ask: Is the division being rejected as my division applicable to the Athenian method of maintaining democracy by rejecting Majority Rule, where they did not want Majority Rule because Majority Rule is not democracy, as Majority Rule is a sure fire way to establish Oligarchy, and Oligarchy was rejected for reasons that can be explained in minute detail in the Athenian example, and in the indictment of crimes perpetrated by the British in the Declaration of Independence (first draft) before the slave trade crimes were struck out of the document? Again, rule-by-lot has its own flaws, which I consider to be worse than regular old representative democracy’s flaws. > [@Josf](#): > > I can illustrate my question above with a rewriting of the rejection offered by Human Action. My question is to ask if the rewritten statements can be validated as true or false, in the opinion of Human Action? > > I reject the Athenian division; majority rule is in no way “Oligarchy.” Not necessarily, no. > [@Josf](#): > > Is that the same rejection as the original rejection? Pretty much; in that they are absolute statements presented without basis in fact. > [@Josf](#): > > I reject the modern division; majority rule is in no way "two wolves and a sheep deciding what is for “dinner.” Not necessarily, no. > [@Josf](#): > > or > > "I reject the Thomas Paine division; majority rule is in no way “monarchy.” Paine didn’t argue that. He was arguing for a republic, as opposed to a monarchy. A monarchy isn’t majority rule, by definition. > [@Josf](#): > > or > > “I reject the John Adams division; majority rule is in no way “anti-federal” (the voluntary federal agreement ends when the monarchy perpetrates crimes that are presented, enumerated, as the monarch is indicted for specific crimes that end the federal nature of the voluntary union.” Adams didn’t argue that; his complaints weren’t against majority rule, as the colonies weren’t represented in Parliament. Adams wrote Massachusetts’ [Constitution](https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_Commonwealth_of_Massachusetts_(1780)), which was the model for the later US Constitution, and it created a government by majority rule: eligible voters selected representatives, who then voted bills into law. > [@Josf](#): > > Does the rejection only apply to my use of the term criminal rule? > > In other words does Human Action only reject the use of the word “criminal rule” as I use the term in context? > > If so, then the rejection is purely an argument over semantics, yes, no, or some reasonable other response? I reject your use of “criminal rule” as a catchall for things you don’t like; it’s a well-poisoning value judgment. ---
**Author:** ![Josf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/d78d45/32.png) [@Josf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Josf)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2015, 2:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/divisions-along-rule-of-law-versus-criminal-rule/727009/151 "2015-08-11T02:23:54Z")
I managed to find the time to return and read the following words: > [@](#): > > Evidently, the Federalist/Anti-Federalist schism was just a prelude to a general, if scattershot, debate about the legitimacy of government. That’s fine, but for it work, I suggest you argue from first principles. Instead, you seem to be doing the opposite, arguing backward - from the Federalists, back to your\* ideas about government and taxation. That is simply wrong. The most damning testimony concerning first principles is offered in the words of John Adams explaining the voluntary nature of federalism and then in the later words of Thomas Jefferson enumerating, presenting, documenting, specifying, and indicting the crime of slavery perpetrated by the oligarchical, monarchal, despotic, tyrannical, and criminal British. That is first principles. I won’t bother stepping into any additional land mines placed in the field. That land mine is easy to spot, easy to mark, easy to step around or over, in debate on this topic. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2015, 2:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/divisions-along-rule-of-law-versus-criminal-rule/727009/152 "2015-08-11T02:27:52Z")
> [@Josf](#): > > I managed to find the time to return and read the following words: Good, because I was about to ask “Is Josf stallin’?” ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2015, 2:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/divisions-along-rule-of-law-versus-criminal-rule/727009/153 "2015-08-11T02:57:17Z")
So you are saying that the first principles of American society are: 1. any relationship by states to a national government must be voluntary, and 2. slavery is bad ? What is the factual basis for that belief? Preferably, again, in a few sentences using terminology and words commonly understood by English speakers. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2015, 12:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/divisions-along-rule-of-law-versus-criminal-rule/727009/154 "2015-08-11T12:34:50Z")
> [@Josf](#): > > I managed to find the time to return and read the following words: > > That is simply wrong. The most damning testimony concerning first principles is offered in the words of John Adams explaining the voluntary nature of federalism and then in the later words of Thomas Jefferson enumerating, presenting, documenting, specifying, and indicting the crime of slavery perpetrated by the oligarchical, monarchal, despotic, tyrannical, and criminal British. > > That is first principles. > > I won’t bother stepping into any additional land mines placed in the field. That land mine is easy to spot, easy to mark, easy to step around or over, in debate on this topic. I must disagree. Arguing from first principles would require, for instance, establishing that government _should_ be based on voluntary association, or what makes a government oligarchical/monarchal/etc, and whether and when that justifies war to force a political separation. The words of Adams and Jefferson are not, themselves, first principles. They were statesmen, not holy prophets. ---
**Author:** ![Josf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/d78d45/32.png) [@Josf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Josf)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2015, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/divisions-along-rule-of-law-versus-criminal-rule/727009/155 "2015-08-11T17:17:10Z")
I do not argue. One of my first driving principles is the principle of agreement. If agreement can be found through debate, then there are competitive ways to find agreement through debate. It just so happens that the natural law principle of agreement is in line with the Christian words having to do with the law. If people live and let live, where people agree to live and let live, then those people constitute civil society whereby people do unto others as they would have others do unto them, which is a voluntary association. As soon as (John Adams confirms) someone in Civil Society (federated society) steps outside of the voluntary nature of voluntary association, is as soon as the one stepping outside is the one accurately accounted as the one doing wrong, ending the voluntary association, ending the federal arrangement, as the accurately accounted aggressor does onto others before others can do unto him, her, or them. The available literature confirms (in many forms along the way) that the federation formed in mutual defense, against the criminal British, that each State was independent, and was therefore able to choose independently, when, where, how, why, and how much the people in the other States step over the line of first principles (voluntary association) and they, in the other States, end the federation because they initiate involuntary actions. The criminals (of course) are going to agree that the victims are victims, because they can, they have the might they think makes anything they do right. On the other hand, those being attacked are going to agree that they are being attacked, and the federal agreement remained a federal agreement when it was agreed upon that the criminals could not dictate to the victims that the victims had no say, and therefore no defense, no remedy, in cases where the officers of law used the office of law as a launching platform for deception, threat of violence, and aggressive violence upon targeted, innocent, victims. That is clearly the message in the words of John Adams on the nature of federation. The forms where this battle raged between federal (voluntary, independent, people in States, can join, or not join, pay for, or not pay for, a voluntary, federal, mutual defense association, where aggressors are accurately accounted as aggressors by those people in each State) and national, between federal and consolidated, between federal and monarchial, between federal and oligarchical, dictatorial, tyrannical, deceptive, threatening, and aggressively violent, the forms where this battle raged between federal and criminal were many. The forms where this battle between the two divisions raged between federal (voluntary) and anti-federal (involuntary) were many. 1. Debates during the formation of the Federation. 2. Debates during the writing of the Declaration of Independence (where John Adams speaks about the meaning of federation as a voluntary association.) 3. Debates during the prosecution of the defensive war. 4. Debates during the formation of the second Statute after the first Statute known as a Declaration of Independence, where the second Statute was a formalization of the existing voluntary agreement to federate for mutual defense, and the second Statute constitutes those voluntary Articles of Confederation. 5. Debates during an attempted internal Military coup after the British surrender. 6. Debates during a battle between Revolutionary Forces in Massachusetts as criminal aggressors took over the Massachusetts government forming an Ant-Federal, Anti-Republican, Anti-Democratic, criminal government which enslaved the productive people in Massachusetts. 7. Debates during the time after the last Revolutionary Battle in Massachusetts concerning the payments of War Debts owed to War Profiteers. 8. Debates during attempts to amend the existing constitution, statute, articles of confederation, forming the federation, so as to pay the War Debts owed to the War Profiteers. 9. Debates during a final fraudulent attempt to “amend” the existing federation whereby those calling for “amending” the existing federation set aside the voluntary federation in favor of a consolidated nation state in which a conscripted national army taken from the whole population of people in all the States, commanded by a dictatorial War Debt collecting Tyrant, can crush Revolutionary Spirit at the exclusive power of will commanded by War Profiteers seeking War Debt Collection. 10. Debates after the criminal take-over of the former federation concerning a change from trial by jury according to the common law to a reforming of debt collecting courts known alternatively as Equity, Exchequer, Chancery, Admiralty, Maritime, and Summary Justice courts, enforced before the Bill of Rights amended the new Consolidated Nation State document. 11. Debates after the criminal take-over of the former federation concerning the establishment of a fraudulent Central Bank whereby private interests are given exclusive license to extort wealth from every producer in America through that well known “Central Bank” legal fiction, legal tender, Ponzi scheme. 12. Debates over the enforcement of debt collecting done by a Tyrannical Military Dictator who assembles an army of conscripts to invade a former independent State in order to collect an excise Tax, which mirrors the same crimes perpetrated by the former British Military Dictator’s crimes so well presented to a candid world in Statute #1 a Declaration of Independence. 13. Debates over the anti-federal Alien and Sedition Acts, whereby anyone daring to speak against the anti-federal Dictator number 2 is summarily found guilty of a crime in a Summary Justice Kangaroo Court proceeding. 14. Debates formed officially as the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions. First principles enumerated are based upon Christian Religious Law, written as Matthew 7:12, those on the side of federation (voluntary association explained by John Adams before the publishing of the Declaration of Independence), are those conforming to natural law added to Christian Religious Law, when they maintain voluntary mutual defense against enemies of Liberty foreign and domestic up to and including the point at which Thomas Jefferson and James Madison add to the papers that constitute the statutes of the American government (federal, republican, and democratic, or anti-federal, anti-republican, and anti-democratic) with those documents known as the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions. [http://www.constitution.org/cons/kent1798.htm](http://www.constitution.org/cons/kent1798.htm) > [@](#): > > 1. Resolved, That the several States composing, the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government; but that, by a compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a general government for special purposes — delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving, each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; and that whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force: that to this compact each State acceded as a State, and is an integral part, its co-States forming, as to itself, the other party: that the government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress. [http://www.constitution.org/cons/virg1798.htm](http://www.constitution.org/cons/virg1798.htm) > [@](#): > > That the General Assembly doth also express its deep regret, that a spirit has in sundry instances, been manifested by the federal government, to enlarge its powers by forced constructions of the constitutional charter which defines them; and that implications have appeared of a design to expound certain general phrases (which having been copied from the very limited grant of power, in the former articles of confederation were the less liable to be misconstrued) so as to destroy the meaning and effect, of the particular enumeration which necessarily explains and limits the general phrases; and so as to consolidate the states by degrees, into one sovereignty, the obvious tendency and inevitable consequence of which would be, to transform the present republican system of the United States, into an absolute, or at best a mixed monarchy. Now, and thankfully there is someone among this group (divided into two groups) who may be familiar with economic principles. From first principles of Christian Religious Law, to Natural Law, it can easily be shown, also, how Economic Law works for one side against the other side. For the true voluntary federal side the law works for all of those on that side. True voluntary federal law does not work for those who prefer anti-federal, involuntary, criminal, slave/master, subject/tyrant, relationships. Of course the special interests can no longer feed off of their victims when voluntary, federal, mutual defense works for everyone EXCEPT the criminals. If there is a demand for effective defense against criminals foreign and domestic, then free markets work best for everyone, again excepting the criminals. Where competitors are afforded free access to the free market, those competitors offer higher quality and lower cost supplies to meet that demand, then first principle market forces (individual decisions made by individuals that constitute a collective sum total of market force) voluntarily force suppliers to produce, and supply, higher quality, and lower cost, competitive supplies to meet the demand for effective, mutual, voluntary, defense against all enemies foreign and domestic. First principles of Economic Law agrees with both Christian Religious Law, and both of those agrees with Natural Law first principles. 1. Do unto others as you would have other’s do unto you (do not initiate violence aggressively) as the Religious First Principle of Law based upon the quoted words of Jesus Christ in Matthew 7:12. 2. Natural Law as explained by John Adams whereby voluntary (federal) mutual defense is destroyed the moment an aggressor breaks the peace. 3. Economic Law decidedly favors voluntary free markets in all human action including the human action where voluntary federalists debate against involuntary anti-federalists and words inspire actions to supply effective defense against all enemies of free markets foreign and domestic. Explained well enough in the following link and quote: > **[Reclaiming the American Revolution: The Kentucky and Virgina Resolutions and...](https://www.amazon.com/Reclaiming-American-Revolution-Kentucky-Resolutions/dp/1403963037)** > > Reclaiming the American Revolution: The Kentucky and Virgina Resolutions and their Legacy \[Watkins, William\] on Amazon.com. \*FREE\* shipping on qualifying offers. Reclaiming the American Revolution: The Kentucky and Virgina Resolutions and their... > [@](#): > > Second, federalism permits the states to operate as laboratories of democracy-to experiment with various policies and Programs. For example, if Tennessee wanted to provide a state-run health system for its citizens, the other 49 states could observe the effects of this venture on Tennessee’s economy, the quality of care provided, and the overall cost of health care. If the plan proved to be efficacious other states might choose to emulate it, or adopt a plan taking into account any problems surfacing in Tennessee. If the plan proved to be a disastrous intervention, the other 49 could decide to leave the provision of medical care to the private sector. With national plans and programs, the national officials simply roll the dice for all 284 million people of the United States and hope they get things right. > > Experimentation in policymaking also encourages a healthy competition among units of government and allows the people to vote with their feet should they find a law of policy detrimental to their interests. Using again the state-run health system as an example, if a citizen of Tennessee was unhappy with Tennessee’s meddling with the provisions of health care, the citizen could move to a neighboring state. Reallocation to a state like North Carolina, with a similar culture and climate, would not be a dramatic shift and would be a viable option. Moreover, if enough citizens exercised this option, Tennessee would be pressured to abandon its foray into socialized medicine, or else lose much of its tax base. To escape a national health system, a citizen would have to emigrate to a foreign country, an option far less appealing and less likely to be exercised than moving to a neighboring state. Without competition from other units of government, the national government would have much less incentive than Tennessee would to modify the objectionable policy. Clearly, the absence of experimentation and competition hampers the creation of effective programs and makes the modification of failed national programs less likely. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2015, 5:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/divisions-along-rule-of-law-versus-criminal-rule/727009/156 "2015-08-11T17:36:36Z")
I’m sorry you didn’t get the government you want, but that’s the way it goes sometimes. Now that you’ve explained all that’s supposedly wrong with our country, could you _please_ tell us what the solution is? ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2015, 7:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/divisions-along-rule-of-law-versus-criminal-rule/727009/157 "2015-08-11T19:00:31Z")
So, **Josf** , you’d like a federal republic; wherein the central government has limited, enumerated powers; governed by the rule of law; with a Christian slant; and featuring a free-market economy? Great news! That’s what the United States is. I really don’t know what else to say…this is akin to arguing that indigo is a moral and correct color, and violet is a criminal, fraudulent one. For Pete’s sake, _John Adams was a Federalist!_ ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2015, 7:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/divisions-along-rule-of-law-versus-criminal-rule/727009/158 "2015-08-11T19:53:27Z")
> [@](#): > > I do not argue. One of my first driving principles is the principle of agreement. > > If agreement can be found through debate, then there are competitive ways to find agreement through debate. > > It just so happens that the natural law principle of agreement is in line with the Christian words having to do with the law. > > If people live and let live, where people agree to live and let live, then those people constitute civil society whereby people do unto others as they would have others do unto them, which is a voluntary association. > > As soon as (John Adams confirms) someone in Civil Society (federated society) steps outside of the voluntary nature of voluntary association, is as soon as the one stepping outside is the one accurately accounted as the one doing wrong, ending the voluntary association, ending the federal arrangement, as the accurately accounted aggressor does onto others before others can do unto him, her, or them. Holy shit. It’s English, but at the same time it isn’t. It’s like _Jabberwocky_ or _A Clockwork Orange_. Or possibly just a very old build of Babelfish. ---
**Author:** ![aldiboronti](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9fc348/32.png) [@aldiboronti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aldiboronti)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2015, 8:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/divisions-along-rule-of-law-versus-criminal-rule/727009/159 "2015-08-11T20:07:29Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Holy shit. It’s English, but at the same time it isn’t. It’s like _Jabberwocky_ or _A Clockwork Orange_. Or possibly just a very old build of Babelfish. It’s English, Captain, but not as we know it. I recommend observation from a safe distance until we know what we’re dealing with here. ---
**Author:** ![Velocity](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/velocity/32/18006_2.png) [@Velocity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Velocity)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2015, 8:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/divisions-along-rule-of-law-versus-criminal-rule/727009/160 "2015-08-11T20:19:52Z")
I’m confused… [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/divisions-along-rule-of-law-versus-criminal-rule/727009.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/divisions-along-rule-of-law-versus-criminal-rule/727009.md?page=9)