Authorities Who Appoint Themselves; What Could Possibly Go Wrong?

There are two types of authority. There is authority a person may have over a subject or skill. This is positive and can be creative. Traditionally, we sought out authorities of this manner to aid us in our survival as individuals and as tribes and this lead to our survival as a species. A Kahuna in Hawaiian culture is an example of this.

There is another type of authority which came into being within hierarchical societies such as we have today. This is authority a person may have (or claim) over other people. It is an extension of parental authority over children into adulthood. It is dysfunctional and always has negative consequences. It is no coincidence that our hierarchical societies led by people who claim authority over others are visibly heading for destruction.

Throughout history, those that have claimed authority over others point to two sources for this power. The first claimed source is God and this is dealt with below. The second source is ourselves, 'the governed'. This is the basis for Democracy.

Governments, having been voted into office by a majority of voters then claim the right to compel people who did not vote for them into complying with a particular measure. The problem here is that not one person on earth has authority over another and so cannot delegate an authority, that they do not have, to a government to use to coerce other people.

As adults, we all have free will. This simple but profound fact says that we are in charge of our decisions. If we are in charge of decisions, we are in charge of ourselves and then it follows that no one else is in charge of us and our decisions. It also follows that we are not in charge of others' decisions or their lives. That is the way God designed us or the way Nature has evolved us; take your pick. We as a species have spent 99% of our time on earth in co-operative, non-coercive, non-hierarchical, self-organising tribal societies.

If God designed us, as the Catholic Church maintains, then it makes no sense at all for them to say that God has given popes (and therefore kings) authority over us; that they know what's best for us. In effect, the Church is saying is that God made us as we are with two legs, two arms and free will but doesn't want us to use our free will and wants the people in funny hats instead to use their free will for us. That is a contradiction and there are no contradictions in nature. So one of the propositions, at least, must be wrong. The obviously wrong proposition is that God gave men in pointy hats authority over us. What is it with all these funny hats, anyway? Hats on, hats off!

If we take the tack that our natures (which includes free will) have evolved over perhaps a million years, then it follows that we are perfectly honed through evolution to survive and thrive. In other words, we need individual free will to survive as an individual and as a species. If that free will and our self authority is inhibited or taken away from us, it follows that our survival will be compromised. And, indeed, it has been. All the abuse in our society results from people taking authority over others that those people do not have.

They are going against Natural Law and, in particular, the design of the human mind. Gravity is part of Natural Law, too. It is part of the design of this world. If you were to jump off the roof of your house, you are exercising your free will. But you have no free will as to whether you float off in the air or fall straight to the ground at an accelerating rate. We don't have power over the consequences of our choices once they have been made.

Natural Law can be said to be the Law of Consequences. And there are inevitable consequences to child abuse and every other form of abuse and exploitation that is rife in our society. The design of our consciousness, our psychology, has been transgressed and Natural Law says there will be harmful effects. The harmful consequences are there to tell everyone paying attention not to do it again – this is the wrong road; the road to ruin.

But people in power want to keeping doing it again and much else that is harmful. So to guard against the knowledge and spread of Natural Law (and our own commonsense) and to shore up its own power, the Church developed Canon Law as a substitute law. Instead of learning God's law that is very evident in the design of the world around us including our own psychology, we are now told to learn it from a book written by men. Man's Law in place of God's Law or Nature's Law. What could possibly go wrong?

Canon Law spawned Maritime Law (sometimes called Law of the Sea or Mercantile Law) which, in turn spawned modern Commercial Law, Administrative Law and our whole legal system. The other branch of our law, the Criminal Code, which is supposed to be based on Common Law which, in turn, is supposed to be based on Natural Law (but isn't) is no better because Criminal Law is based on the concept of punishment (Canon Law again) and not on Restitution which is demanded by Natural Law.

Restitution undoes some of the initial harm and puts a stop to the ongoing harm to the individual and society. Punishment is just more violence and does not improve the situation for the victim. It just creates more violence and violence begets more violence making the situation for society worse. This suits some people. Of course, these legal codes spawned a rash of lawyers and a rash of work for them.

So we have a legal system that proposes to combat violence with more violence and just makes matters worse in the process. Has all the money spent on lawyers and the legal system seriously inhibited crime? No, it clearly doesn't work as advertised. Again, we have Man's Law (punishment and violence) substituted for God's Law or Nature's Law (restitution). And what hasn't gone wrong?

There are two videos below that deal with some of these problems. The first is an excellent documentary, “Frequently Unanswered Questions” that lays out graphically, simply and very effectively how government authority in Australia today is simply presumed and maintained through lying and trickery. Scott Bartle, the author and presenter, shows how today's government and government departments do not follow their own legal system and are, in fact, commercial corporations. Commercial corporations are accountable to their shareholders not their 'customers'. But it is worse than that. Let Scott Bartle describe just how bad it is together with a method that has proved somewhat successful.

The second is an interview with Frank O'Collins, an Australian researcher and presenter on the historical basis of our legal system. He shows how the very basis of our legal system is corrupt and is not simply a matter of a government not following its own laws. The Law is invalid whether it is followed or not. The interview is conducted by Lisa M Harrison who asks good questions and allows Frank O'Collins the space to answer them.

Both videos are 'eye-openers' in my view.

Scott Bartle

View on YouTube

Frank O'Collins

View on YouTube


excellent piece james

I love it, just love it!
And am looking forward to enjoying the videos

"So we have a legal system that proposes to combat violence with more violence and just makes matters worse in the process. Has all the money spent on lawyers and the legal system seriously inhibited crime? No, it clearly doesn't work as advertised"

I suspect the real goal of the legal system is perpetuation of itself for profit and perpetuation of basic corruption

"Again, we have Man's Law (punishment and violence) substituted for God's Law or Nature's Law (restitution). And what hasn't gone wrong?"

Everything has gone wrong for us and right for the elite classes this system actually serves

Read this entirely to hubby too smiling

Thanks for your comment, Penny

I agree with you entirely about the purpose of the legal system especially in 'Common Law' countries. It underpins all corruption.

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
By submitting this form, you accept the Mollom privacy policy.