The 'Rule of Law'

The precise legal definition of 'the rule of law' seems to have been 'misplaced' by our 'guardians of civilization' and lost in history. Current judges state: 'I am the law,' implying that they are the beginning and end of authority, residing in their eminently trustworthy and infallible persons. Enough information is now available to re-construct the 'rule of law' from the evidence.

Judges make the claim that they do what they do under authority of the 'rule of law.' This means that judges admit that 'the rule of law' actually exists and further admit they will not tell us what it is, by my lengthy and colossal failure to find a written and legally binding definition of the 'rule of law' anywhere.

Judges further claim that their role is to serve as 'guardians of civilization,' under the 'rule of law' which means the law must have some measurable purpose and effect besides fattening the bank accounts of legal 'professionals.'

The 'rule of law,' by its very words implies that it is intended to replace or at least control the power of rulers and all of the problems associated with arbitrary rulers and the conflict of competition for the position of 'ruler.' It also implies that it is not a mere replacement of rulers by another ruler class called 'Judge,' since this is just a name change and solves no problems. If it means that the law is supreme and Judges are mere interpreters, this is just a shifting of arbitrary rule to those who make the laws. Even if the lawmakers are elected representatives of the people, this still does not solve the problem of the majority enslaving the productive, oppressing minorities and collapsing civilization. Therefore, the rule of law cannot be a mere shifting of power to any one group, including the majority, since this solves none of mankind's organizational problems. The 'rule of law' must be something different.

Given the fact that those who wield force under color of law are by definition numerically inferior (but better armed with weapons we have provided to them) to those who must tolerate their actions, the 'rule of law,' to be useful must have some advantage able to achieve voluntary consent from a broad base of individuals who would otherwise organize to overthrow it like any other oppressive ruler throughout history.

To guard civilization, we must know what civilization actually is. We must know what is required for civilization to function. We must know what civilization should be guarded from. We need to know how success in protecting civilization can be measured.

Civilization is about the way mankind is organized. Since the organization of man is about individuals and groups interacting, we must consider the goals and motivations of the components in order to consider their organization. This is because there is no force in the universe able to enslave man by imposing an organization contrary to free choice. The definition of organization is: 'the set of capabilities and boundaries of the parts and the rules governing relationships between the parts.'

The greatest threat to civilization is from the competition of individuals and groups trying to achieve dominance over other individuals and groups. This results in total conflict and the collapse of social organization, placing collective survival at risk. Thus, the purpose of 'the rule of law' is to reduce conflict. We must understand what creates conflict in order to reduce it. The absence of conflict is peace and cooperation. Therefore civilization and the 'rule of law' is about the rules by which we live in peace and cooperate with each other by the minimization of conflict.

The 'rule of law' cannot leave any particular group in charge, since this group would ultimately enslave all others, as proven by historical experience. Since control of the law cannot be entrusted to some, it must be entrusted to all. Therefore, the 'rule of law' must be a simple philosophical statement of what is justice and not justice easily understood and agreed to by all men. This allows all to see that the law is fair and ensure that justice is done, to guard against injustice. If all have fairness and justice, no honest man will desire conflict. The 'rule of law' must also be the glue that ties all of mankind together in common interest, for mutual survival. Since this is the purpose of 'the rule of law,' it must also be a moral statement that mankind's overall survival is more important than some natural rights of inherently free men. Given that man's second highest goal is freedom, the 'rule of law' must limit freedom as little as possible, sufficient only to reduce conflict. If this were not the case, conflict would occur in pursuit of freedom.

The defining characteristic of any individual or group is the need to survive. To do so, goals must be achieved. In the seeking of any goal, there are only three possibilities. You can steal by force or fraud or you can trade value for value. There are no other possibilities. Since conflict is a consequence of forceful and fraudulent methods of goal seeking, these methods must be suppressed by law. These methods create conflict because they interfere with the survival of the victims, causing a defensive response. The only peaceful means of goal seeking is thus by mutually agreed trade.

To encourage mutually agreed trade, it must be un-coerced and people must be able to keep the fruits of their labors, or why bother? Trade reduces conflict further by virtue of the parties becoming interdependent and thus having an interest in mutual survival. Peaceful trade requires the law to treat all equally and property rights must be absolute.

The above conflict minimization and goal-seeking considerations results in a precise definition of 'the rule of law':

- 'the suppression of forceful and fraudulent methods of goal seeking'

- 'all are treated equally by the law.' This means ALL, including king and judges

- 'absolute property rights'

Note that I use equality in the mathematical sense 'in all dimensions.' The meaning of the key words have been obscured by an assault on language, to destroy the precision required for truth.

The above 'rule of law' is what governments, judges and the legal profession have been hiding from us for centuries, while they and their cronies feed off of the conflict and human misery created by their illegal acts and divisive political philosophies. Mankind has long had this knowledge to create a better world for all and it is suppressed, for the profit of some. This suppression of truth is the greatest crime against humanity ever committed. It is an unthinkably evil crime. The unbelievable degree of evil and malice against mankind of this crime is the greatest defense of the perpetrators. These groups hypocritically claim to be acting in mankind's interest. Unchecked, these crimes will drive mankind to extinction by war, civilizations or ecological collapse. Do not expect the legal profession to judge itself guilty in this or any other matter.

The 'rule of law' is the highest law of mankind. All other laws are subservient and cannot contradict the 'rule of law.' All laws contradicting this including constitutional are an offense to mankind's collective survival and must be fought and destroyed. This most basic of laws is the highest intellectual achievement of mankind, the result of objective consideration of mankind's goals, nature, environment, history and survival by the greatest and most objective minds mankind has yet produced. The 'rule of law' is a profound truth which allows the most dangerous predator on the planet to live together in peace and harmony, cooperating for mutual self-interest and progress.

The above definition of the 'rule of law' is fully consistent with what governments, judges and the legal profession pretend to be guided (but not bound) by. The fact that government and judges do not consider themselves bound by the 'rule of law' allows them to remain in control, creating plausible 'necessity,' 'complexity' or 'technicalities' of why they and their cronies are special and above the law, free to suck the life out of their fellow men. This allows them to keep all of us fighting each other by refusing true equality and tricking us into blaming and killing each other. They make us slaves to their will by denying our property rights and threatening seizure. This allows them to promise our productivity to others who refuse to choose personal responsibility or accept the consequences of this decision, buying political support at our expense and placing incompetents in democratic control. The chaos of usurped democracy provides confusion and cover while our civilization is looted and destroyed, for the benefit of the unscrupulous.

For their grand finale, they are steering civilization to a worldwide conflagration of war that can never, ever end until the human race is extinct. This is for the simple reason that we have been duped into thinking our survival depends on someone else's exploitation. Our victims have responded by becoming what some call terrorist and I call freedom fighter. When justice is denied, conflict is the only survival option.

The absence of the 'rule of law' also prevents serious international cooperation in the critical areas of pollution, global warming, renewable energy, economics and poverty. The most crucial foundation of civilization has been stolen and removed. As a consequence, civilization is toppling.

The 'rule of law' is simple and unambiguous, making justice a simple matter with no special exemptions for anyone. Simply put, if any individual or group acts in a manner that creates conflict, then they are guilty and offend all of mankind. Any issue can easily be resolved by process of elimination. If it is not an honest, mutually agreed trade, then it is theft or fraud by definition. Since all are subject to this law, governments must also earn their keep and deal with each other and us in a non-conflictual manner. They will not do this willingly.

There is not a single problem of humanity that is not in some way related to the current and historical suppression of the 'rule of law.' The fact that the powers that be claim it as a pretext and the sophisticated methods by which they create and profit from conflict is sufficient proof that they understand the behavioral principles involved and their peril if the 'rule of law' ever returns.

Under the 'rule of law,' honest men are in charge, with a simple and precise definition of what they should be doing. Democracy will be prevented from discriminating on any basis, ending divide and conquer politics, forcing voters to consider common interest rather than advantage over others.

The 'rule of law' is brilliantly simple, just and well suited to all of mankind. The fact that western democracies once had prosperity, honesty, social unity and a work ethic argues that we once had the 'rule of law' to which all honest men agreed, to the detriment of criminals. The fact that these values are under concerted attack by 'Social Engineers,' creating conflict by pitting viewpoint against viewpoint is proof enough of who is responsible and that they know exactly what they are doing.

The resources we illegally spend on conflict and Third World predations, if redirected into education and honest trade, could easily solve world poverty and allow us to get on with the business of collective survival. It would free innovators to solve problems rather than defending their just rewards from predators with gavels.

The answer to the implied judicial question of 'I am big, I have all the power and can do whatever I please, you cannot prove me wrong and what can you do about it?' is, You have just been proven wrong. You are big and will thus fall very hard and take many with you. If you are not forced to fall, you will take all of us with you when your offenses against natural law which is also man's law collapses the civilization on which you prey.

The entire legal profession is profoundly wrong and an enemy of mankind. Who judges the judges? We do and I have. My role in this is done by publishing the proof of these crimes against humanity. Will we let civilization continue to absorb these predations and consequences until it collapses from the accumulated weight of our follies in tolerating this?

Your rating: None
Bill Ross's picture
Columns on STR: 5

Bill Ross is an electronic design engineer in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. The above article is an excerpt from, an evolving objective study of humanity and civilization and dissection of the lies of those who incorrectly believe they are in control from the factual, provable perspective. Feedback is welcome.


Bill Ross's picture

This information regarding law was posted by Bruce at:

There is a clear distinction between what is legal and what is lawful. The word lawful implies what history has found to be moral and just, and pertains to what we perceive as the common law. The word legal relates to what is legislatively declared to be the law.

Condense law to its lowest common denominator, you have on the one hand cause and effect, which relates to the common law, and what constitutes a harmonious society; and on the other hand you have agreement of the parties. That too can result in a harmonious society. Where the two diverge is when two parties agree to commit unlawful acts, such as plunder ones neighbor. Under the common law that is not tolerated. Under the civil law, that is encouraged; and therefore under the civil law unlawful acts are declared legal.

When we speak of the civil law we speak of the ancient Roman Civil law. Check Oxford dictionary of the English language. Civil law is another form of feudalism. Rather than have a king as a ruler, you have a group of oligarchs. Civil law is foreign law to these united States of America.

The law form authorized by the Constitution is the ancient common law. The Northwest Ordinance recognizes the same in stating that the inhabitants of the Northwest Territories are to forever enjoy their actions brought according to the course of the common law.

The United States Congress is an interface between the inhabitants of these united States and the Monarchies of Europe. Congress exercises commercial powers. For whom does it exercise them? We presume they do so for the inhabitants of the various states.

Examining who benefits from the exercise of Congressional powers one would come to a different conclusion.The United States is a commercial venture.These united States describes an association of people joined for the purpose of mutual protection and the declaration of what is acceptable behavior. The people are governed by the precepts of the common law.

Legislate = to make law = to enter into agreements (to contract) for the purpose of creating or maintaining a public utility. Legislative branch decides what is to be accomplished and at what cost.Executive branch is the party contracting with the Legislative branch to accomplish a public utility.

Legislation is binding upon the executive branch only, and not the people, unless the people by contract or application join the executive branch, or worse yet, create the illusion that they are property of the public realm.

Look up the words resident, subject and citizen in a law dictionary. A description of something that is manifest in the physical world is called actual. What is real belongs to the abstract, contrary to common usage. The word real is short for the word realm. Hence real estate is estate of the realm.

And titles in real estate are described in abstracts of title.Through confusion of words and phrases, the people have been deceived into believing that they are bound by legislation. Yet, anyone in and around the courts for any great length could tell you that officers of the court do not abide by legislative edicts or rules of the court if they can get away with not doing so.

Thus, we can describe law as having the following attributes, all of which can be summarized in the phrase: agreement of the parties.The law is whatever you are allowed to get away with -- and the corollary, the law is whatever you allow someone else to get away with.

The law is whatever you can get someone to believe the law is -- and the corollary, the law is whatever someone else can get you to believe the law is.These describe the relationship of law between two parties. The implications are obvious when the State is one of those parties.

So, the question arises, "Can the state, a fiction, have an agreement with someone who is actual?" I think not. Hence an interface must be devised. That interface is called the person.

It has never been unlawful for men and women to use gold or silver coin as money. It has never been lawful to force another to use any other medium of exchange absent prior consent in which there has been full disclosure and a valuable consideration exchanged.

Yet, while persons are creations of the state, the state can declare whatever it wants to be used as money, and persons must comply. For that reason it is imperative that you be convinced that you are a person, and that legal tender laws apply to you.

Suverans2's picture

G'day Bill Ross,

Bruce wrote, in the comment you posted, (which is otherwise an excellent dissertation), "The word lawful implies what history has found to be moral and just, and pertains to what we perceive as the common law."

According to Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 1332 the definition of "rule of law" is this:

    "The rule of law, sometimes called "the supremacy of law", provides that decisions should be made by the application of known principles or laws without the intervention of discretion in their application."

And what is the "supreme law" of man? It is not the "common law", which is dependent upon "custom" and/or "judicial decisions", it is the "law of nature", the "natural law" of man.

    The law of nature is superior in obligation to any other. It is binding in all countries and at all times. No human laws are valid if opposed to this, and all which are binding derive their authority either directly or indirectly from it. ~ Institutes of American Law by John Bouvier, 1851, Part I, Title II, No. 9
    [The natural] law is the paramount law, and the same law, over all the world, at all times, and for all peoples; and will be the same paramount and only law, at all times, and for all peoples, so long as man shall live upon the earth. ~ Natural Law; or the Science of Justice by Lysander Spooner
    This law of nature, being coeval with mankind and dictated by God himself, is of course superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe in all countries, and at all times: no human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this; and such of them as are valid derive all their force, and all their authority, mediately or immediately, from this original. ~ 1 W. Blackstone, Commentaries at 41
    ...“natural law,” or jus naturale...system of rules and principles for the guidance of human conduct which, independent of enacted law or of the systems peculiar to any one people, might be discovered by the rational intelligence of man, and would be found to grow out of and conform to his nature, meaning by that word his whole mental, moral, and physical constitution. ~ A Dictionary of the Law (Black’s 2ND c. 1910), pg. 804
    Law of nature, is a rule of conduct arising out of the natural relations of human beings established by the Creator, and existing prior to any positive precept. Thus it is a law of nature, that one man should not injure another, and murder and fraud would be crimes, independent of any prohibition from a supreme power. ~ Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language
Suverans2's picture

Could not post this with the below link imbedded, it triggered the spam filter on first attempt at posting it.

http :// (Space added after http so I could post it here.)