Game – The Law Is …

Recreating (and advancing) pk’s censored domains: Macroinformation.org &
Knatz.com / Teaching / Society / Social Order / Civilization / Law /

I repeat:

Law is the enemy of liberty.

And that reminds me: I invite the public to participate in a The law is … Game on the internet. But let’s tighten the format. My sentence has “law” for the subject. The sentence is a typical positional-language sentence: the subject starts the sentence: it comes first, at the left. “The law is followed by the verb “is” (that very dangerous, misleading *word!) Then the balance of the predicate is “two” “words” (one idea): the-enemy of-liberty. (Let’s regard grammatical functionaries such as “articles or “prepositions” as part of the word they specify the function of.) Let’s limit our answers to one “idea.” You see the format in the title above:

The Law Is (Your Entry)

Let’s post a real example paraphrasing the great Lysander Spooner:

The law is a fraud.

Lysander Spooner
thanx freedomsphoenix

I add a clarifying word: Lysander Spooner was an American philosopher who also happened to be a lawyer. Spooner pondered the concept of natural law and predated many of my own conclusions: real laws are in nature itself, we should study to learn those laws, human-penned laws of coercion for political and economic advantage are false laws: fraudulent. Fraud. (If you search for Natural Law at BlackCrayon.com you will be linked to LysanderSpooner.com. You could browse both sites.)

Before proceeding with my own start to the game, I entreat us to pause a moment further and consider a serious epistemological flaw in the format. *English Prime proscribes the verb “is” from English, accurately accusing it of being a verb of identity. General Semantics warns us against identity: the map is not the territory, the symbol is not the thing symbolized … We shouldn’t take our speech “literally.” Semanticist and transactional psychologist Robert Anton Wilson warns us that the word “is” tempts us to find what we’re looking for, the instruments (and attitude) of observation affecting what is seen. Physicists experimenting with light using instruments sensitive to particles will observe light to “be” a particle. Physicists experimenting with light using instruments sensitive to waves will observe light to “be” a wave. My game flirts with fallacy and illusion.

I acknowledge it. But emphasize: had physicists played the “Light is” game the way I’m inviting us to play the “Law is” game sooner, they might have discovered the multiple metaphor, complex nature of light sooner.

Good.

I’ll start, and then you email me yours. You may clarify your “one word” with a brief paragraph (as I am about to do with my own inaugurating entry).

The Game begins:
Sentence:

The law is a failure.

Attribution:
pk@Knatz.com

Brief-Paragraph Clarification:

The law promised my mother that my father would have to pay child support if she divorced the philandering, drunken swine. He didn’t. And the law did nothing about it.

Notes: The law lied. Neither has the law been properly chastised.

I could carry that clarification on and on. Much of Knatz.com “is” a “carrying-on” of such points.

(I could add that I too never paid child support: I’m my father’s son in more than one way: and my wife was like my mother: she believed the law!) note

Note: Results may help all of us to see how seriously readers are taking Knatz.com. More than a few responses would swamp me. The whole of Knatz.com might founder. Don’t forget: god may be watching.

Notes

Child Support:
My father paid no child support, not because he had no money but because he wanted to defy my mother and believed — correctly — that neither she nor the law would do what was necessary to enforce the law. My father was a lawyer and knew well how chicken both the law and women were. The world told my mother that the law would make him pay. But then the judge clarified: the law could put my father in jail until he paid, but the law was actually helpless to make him pay. Would my father have paid from jail? We’ll never know: my mother wouldn’t play the game that far.

Campbell’s Fantasy Magazine was known among the sf writers of the 50s such as Frederick Pohl to pay “a half-cent a word

promptly: upon lawsuit”!

I never paid because I didn’t have the money. And putting me in jail would not have given me the money. I didn’t have the money because the public did not support my attempts to support it. Would the public suddenly have seen the light just because I was suddenly in jail? I doubt it.

I must now add another never before by me uttered clarification: I founded the Free Learning Exchange, the world’s first opportunity for the world to have a universal information network, uncensored, unmanaged, un-coerced, and at cost. Hilary supported me while I did it. She got tired of it. she dropped me, and free information, and the world’s future all in one stroke. She kidnapped our son and fled to her mother. How pathetic. The law supported her kidnapping: she had an income, I had none. The law follows the money. It’s a crime to be poor: the more so if you’re poor because you committed the sin of good deeds.

There was no income for pk or his family for helping to invent networking. There would have been no income for pk in the jail either. Hilary’s crime was to get tangled with a social saint. But as usual, no one got punished more severely than the saint himself.

Ah: I still didn’t finished the intended clarification: Hilary kidnapped Brian after supporting pk and FLEX for a couple of years. Why then? I believe but cannot “prove” the following: because Brian was getting close to school age. Hilary I am sure was terrified of discussing his “education” with me: pk, the deschooler, pk, the anarchist, pk the intellectual university baiter … Hilary knew that she had never won an argument with me and that she never would: not by arguing. So she avoided the necessity of discussion, believing correctly that the law would back her Gordian Knot solution: kidnap the kid, then you don’t need to discuss anything. Once upon a time the law would have backed the father. Fashions change. Now-a-days the law defaults to the mother. (Unless the state doesn’t like the mother: then the state defaults to itself: the worst parent ever. But who can kidnap the kid from HRS?)

But then Hilary has always believed in the state (and its law). Hilary has always worked for the state. Hilary’s parents were employed in areas funded by states: economics, economics, economics. Who should be surprised if the state supports its sheep against its lone wolves?

Of course I’m more a sheep-on-strike than I am a lone-wolf. Our predations are among the things I emphasize while the state obscures.

Above I said that I didn’t pay because I didn’t have the money.

It’s too late to know from experience whether or not that was actually true. No one paid me for my work. Had someone suddenly paid me, how quickly would I then have tried to catch up on child support? Would I have not then been tempted to defy Hilary? Hilary, the kidnapper, the son-stealer? I knew Brian would be well provided for whether or not I paid. Forcing Hilary’s family to pay even more money than they had already paid because of me was my only revenge against their taking the selfish side against the public side: they sided with Hilary: against free information.

My revenge would be that he would never know I was taking revenge.
Faulkner, As I Lay Dying

It was so easy. All Hilary had to do was show a bruise where I had smacked her. Ah: battered woman, therefore, she must be innocent: there’s no need to hear the male’s testimony: case closed.

In Minority Report the psychics foresee a homicide. The police watch as a husband leaves for work, as a wife receives a lover, as the husband returns for something he forgot, as the husband suffers as he hears the lovers’ rut, as the husband goes nuts and stabs somebody … Then the police act: they arrest the husband! In another age they would have stoned the wife, castrated the lover …

But notice: the law is binary: it has no sensitivity at all until something triggers it: then it cries foul. All crimes are OK, but not homicide. If only the law would make up its mind and then hold still: last year, adultery was the crime; murder after adultery was OK.

No one ever asked me why I smacked Hilary. It’s like assuming that prisoners in the Bastille at the time of the Revolution were all Jesus, or Gandhi, or Mandela. What would we think if Charles Manson appealed to Iraq for political asylum?

They incarcerated me!
Oh, gee: you must be innocent.
Poor booby.

2013 04 27 My son had a valuable site on anarchism and anarchists, blackcrayon.com. But links have ceased to work. I know how anarchists get erased, but are we now erasing ourselves?
The funniest thing of blackcrayon was, Macroinformationally, that it didn’t mention me!!! Information left out can outrank information included.

Law Menu

About pk

Seems to me that some modicum of honesty is requisite to intelligence. If we look in the mirror and see not kleptocrats but Christians, we’re still in the same old trouble.
This entry was posted in law and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s