End Sovereign Immunity Once and for All


KenK's picture

The real answer is abolishing government and government police. The entirety of the legal system should be local courts of justice who seek restorative settlements between parties. The only "crimes", as such, should be the seven (of the original eight) common law felonies. Everything else should be a private tort. Tweeks and reforms to the present system are but tail chasing that lead in circles. If you want to end prosecutors, bureaucrats, judges, and cops abusing us, then we have to end their authority over us entirely. 

Samarami's picture


    "...as long as the law remains a state monopoly, there will always be a political struggle for its control..." (John Hasnas, Myth of the Rule of Law)

"We" have a long, long hill to climb, Ken. I strongly recommend anybody meditating your above assessment read Hasnas' short essay as linked above. Especially the conclusion, where he states,

    "...The time has come for those committed to individual liberty to realize that the establishment of a truly free society requires the abandonment of the myth of the rule of law..."

Of course Hasnas talks about "...the establishment of a truly free society..." But I do not foresee a critical mass of individuals abandoning the idea of "the-rule-of-law" in order to establish a-truly-free-society. Therefore, I've found it necessary to establish a truly free society. A society of 1.

I am a sovereign state. Sam

KenK's picture

If each "sovereign" person had the Stirnerite view that they are "the law unto themselves" and so acted accordingly, the world we live in would swiftly become a Hobbesian hell, and in very short order, Sam. At least that's how it seems to me.
I'm no legal scholar but this is how the whole thing about societal order seems to me to work, (when it works) at optimum. Culture > politics > laws. In a group where most people have shared values about right & wrong, cultural norms (i.e., "laws") are well known, so there's no need for arcane legal webspinning nor any opportunity to lobby lawmakers for special considerations.
An ad hoc panel of judges picked by the defendents and plaintiffs themselves should be able to come to some form of settlement both can live with about 99 percent of the time. Persons that ignore court summons or decisions would swiftly find themselves unable to live or do business in a community if they did so by being declared an outlaw
See Sam, if you are a sovereign state unto to yourself, so is Charlie Manson. (I dont think I need to explain the problems with that, do I?)  If some Amish people, for example, want to live how they like & according to their beliefs, their courts would probably get it right the vast majority of the time (n.b. "right" as in something that everybody can live with.) So revenge, retaliation, "pay backs" etc. are greatly disincentivized.

Samarami's picture

I sense in your comment an indwelling, subtle misgiving of hard-shell individualism in deference to comfort in mild collectivism. Now, please don't misinterpret what I'm saying here, Ken: I'm definitely NOT accusing or lumping you in with collectivists. You would not be here and remain here and comment on and participate in the discussions here if you fit that category. You don't.

You're an excellent "devil's advocate" for this forum.

But use of the thought, or the interpretation '...Stirnerite view that they are "the law unto themselves"...' tells me something about how you approach testing the strength of my argument. So at the outset I must repeat that my oft-used "sovereign state" is itself a test of strength of the reasoning of critics I might have. Many "libertarians" seem to have a knee-jerk emotional reaction to use of the term "state". Well, aren't we supposed to "...hate the state..."???

So if I were (in sobriety) to rephrase it, I would be constrained to use the expression "in a state of sovereignty" (as opposed, for instance, to being in a state of melancholy). But if I did that I'd lose the "state" reaction, which is priceless.

So, for now, I'll remain a sovereign state.

I do not know how the world about me will play out once central political government collapses and disappears -- never to be resurrected; but replaced by free market, "common law" consequences that you outlined. I hope to be alive and cognizant when that takes place. It will be interesting (in a macabre sort of way, I suppose) to observe how the likes of Charles Manson will fare in a totally free "society". I have a hunch that the entirety of that murderous debacle was exacerbated egregiously by and within the structure of monopoly "justice" existing in California (and the world) at that time. As it is yet today.

Will the Charles Mansons in a free world have the capability of getting off first base with their evil deeds? Won't free (and armed) folks have them stopped in their tracks before they leave childhood?

I have faith that is how justice will develop once central political "authority" is scuttled once and for all time. Sam