if the rule of law is to remain, whom else?

The problem I think, is in a misunderstanding what the "rule of law" is. This stems from a false understanding of what both "rule" and "law" really are.

Rule, in this case, means "to have authority over," or "make choices for." So then it would seem that Law has authority over us in a "rule of law" system. That is not true. Law doesn't actually exist. "Law" is bunch of words, written down in specific order, done ritualistically three times, that creates a "limit" that doesn't actually exist. This ritual, if done by the High Priests cause us to believe there is a limit, but It isn't a real limit, it is a contrived one. One piece of the Grand Illusion. These laws are created by people who claim authority over We The People. Because these limits are false (you can easily break any such "limit"), they must be enforced by coercion. "Comply with the limits we demand or else!"

Our entire system exists based on these ideas. Our current (mis)understandings of the Rule of Law are what ensure our slavery. No such system can exist that does not lead to slavery, no matter how well intended, because they all are based on the false claim of authority over the Jurisdiction of the Individual.

That doesn't mean there can't be any agreements that we follow; social guidelines. We call these "Treaties" when we talk about "Sovereign Nations." But like laws, a "nation" doesn't exist. A "Nation," like a law, is only defined when someone claims authority over the Jurisdictions of the Individuals of the "nation". The only true Sovereigns, AKA the Ultimate Authorities on this planet are the individual people. Each person has this authority over their own Jurisdiction (we call these "inalienable Rights," though that is a commonly misunderstood concept also). I think when enough people understand these fundamental facts, we will throw the "rule of law" right out the window.

So how would such "treaties" work in practice on the scale of Individuals? Well, another basic understanding we have lost is what "war" is. War is what Sovereigns do when they can't solve their problems any other way. A treaty violation between any two Sovereigns (or any larger group) is an act of war. But there are many different possible outcomes of war, not all of them involve killing.

So let's say there is a town I like the look of, and that town has a treaty that I must sign in order to be allowed to enter (or live there, etc.). One of the pieces of this treaty is that I'm not allowed to shoot my gun off in town (except in self defense) while I'm there. To me, that seems like a reasonable line item in the treaty. I agree to the rest of the line items as well so I sign it. I am not bound by the treaty. It isn't a "limit" because I can violate it. I know I can violate it, and everyone else knows I can violate it. There are no actual limits there. But I understand explicitly that if I violate that treaty there will be consequences. There are always consequences.

Let's say I get drunk one night and start shooting up the place in celebration. In this hypothetical I don't hurt anyone, but I did break the treaty that I chose to sign. That treaty violation is an act of war. I, the Ultimate Authority of my choices, have declared war on the town by violating the treaty. People within the town in return accept my declaration of war and act accordingly. I am then not surprised when I get hauled off to the jail and spend the night sleeping it off. I am not surprised when in the morning I am taken before someone the town has determined to be reasonable in adjudicating treaty violations and they tell me what they have determined the consequences for my treaty violation are. Upon hearing the adjudicators words, I can either comply, or disagree. I am the Ultimate Authority of Me after all. If I disagree, then the people of the town have a choice. They can either force me into jail (an act of war), force me to be dead (an act of war), or simply throw me out of the town, nary to return (also an act of war). These responses are all acts of war between two Sovereign entities in response to my initial act of war. In the act of my treaty violation (shooting my gun) I have shown that I can't comply with the treaty, but there was no harm no foul there. If I agree to some "time out," I can potentially be welcomed back into the community, agreeing once again to abide by the treaty. But if I reject their stated consequences, by not complying with the system put in place to adjudicate treaty violations, I have shown that I can't be trusted to adhere to any treaty at all. The people must then act as they see fit. They could do anything they want from that point; all are acts of war between two Sovereign entities. But there are always consequences. They would have to live with their actions. They would understand that they are doing something against another Sovereign entity which might act to temper their actions accordingly. In our current system, we shuffle that responsibility off to "the rule of law." This displacement of responsibility allows for some heinous crimes against humanity in our "justice system."

The key to appreciating what type of system I'm describing is in appreciating that we are all the Ultimate Authority of Ourselves. With this understanding we are automatically put into a mindset to not make line items in our treaties that will be direct violations of an Individuals Jurisdiction. When we recognize, on the most fundamental level, that each Individual is Sovereign, we don't go around making claims on each others Jurisdiction. But we also don't let other's invasion of ours by acts of war go unanswered either. In this way, a "system of law" becomes a "system of respect for ourselves and others." Each person then has the fundamental right to choose to comply. If they choose not to comply, there are consequences.

This is really no different than how things actually are right now. It's just that almost no one realizes it, so we get all these stupid laws that lay false claims on our Jurisdiction and we believe that is "Reality." We are all so confused on what is really going on. It is in this confusion that we are enslaved. In reality, we are not enslaved. There are just so many coercive efforts that create a Box around us that we can't see that we are already free to choose. It's just that our available choices have been limited by that Box.

A long answer to a short question. My favorite. :)

if the rule of law is to remain, whom else?

The problem I think, is in a misunderstanding what the "rule of law" is. This stems from a false understanding of what both "rule" and "law" really are.

Rule, in this case, means "to have authority over," or "make choices for." So then it would seem that Law has authority over us in a "rule of law" system. That is not true. Law doesn't actually exist. "Law" is bunch of words, written down in specific order, done ritualistically three times, that creates a "limit" that doesn't actually exist. This ritual, if done by the High Priests cause us to believe there is a limit, but It isn't a real limit, it is a contrived one. One piece of the Grand Illusion. These laws are created by people who claim authority over We The People. Because these limits are false (you can easily break any such "limit"), they must be enforced by coercion. "Comply with the limits we demand or else!"

Our entire system exists based on these ideas. Our current (mis)understandings of the Rule of Law are what ensure our slavery. No such system can exist that does not lead to slavery, no matter how well intended, because they all are based on the false claim of authority over the Jurisdiction of the Individual.

That doesn't mean there can't be any agreements that we follow; social guidelines. We call these "Treaties" when we talk about "Sovereign Nations." But like laws, a "nation" doesn't exist. A "Nation," like a law, is only defined when someone claims authority over the Jurisdictions of the Individuals of the "nation". The only true Sovereigns, AKA the Ultimate Authorities on this planet are the individual people. Each person has this authority over their own Jurisdiction (we call these "inalienable Rights," though that is a commonly misunderstood concept also). I think when enough people understand these fundamental facts, we will throw the "rule of law" right out the window.

So how would such "treaties" work in practice on the scale of Individuals? Well, another basic understanding we have lost is what "war" is. War is what Sovereigns do when they can't solve their problems any other way. A treaty violation between any two Sovereigns (or any larger group) is an act of war. But there are many different possible outcomes of war, not all of them involve killing.

So let's say there is a town I like the look of, and that town has a treaty that I must sign in order to be allowed to enter (or live there, etc.). One of the pieces of this treaty is that I'm not allowed to shoot my gun off in town (except in self defense) while I'm there. To me, that seems like a reasonable line item in the treaty. I agree to the rest of the line items as well so I sign it. I am not bound by the treaty. It isn't a "limit" because I can violate it. I know I can violate it, and everyone else knows I can violate it. There are no actual limits there. But I understand explicitly that if I violate that treaty there will be consequences. There are always consequences.

Let's say I get drunk one night and start shooting up the place in celebration. In this hypothetical I don't hurt anyone, but I did break the treaty that I chose to sign. That treaty violation is an act of war. I, the Ultimate Authority of my choices, have declared war on the town by violating the treaty. People within the town in return accept my declaration of war and act accordingly. I am then not surprised when I get hauled off to the jail and spend the night sleeping it off. I am not surprised when in the morning I am taken before someone the town has determined to be reasonable in adjudicating treaty violations and they tell me what they have determined the consequences for my treaty violation are. Upon hearing the adjudicators words, I can either comply, or disagree. I am the Ultimate Authority of Me after all. If I disagree, then the people of the town have a choice. They can either force me into jail (an act of war), force me to be dead (an act of war), or simply throw me out of the town, nary to return (also an act of war). These responses are all acts of war between two Sovereign entities in response to my initial act of war. In the act of my treaty violation (shooting my gun) I have shown that I can't comply with the treaty, but there was no harm no foul there. If I agree to some "time out," I can potentially be welcomed back into the community, agreeing once again to abide by the treaty. But if I reject their stated consequences, by not complying with the system put in place to adjudicate treaty violations, I have shown that I can't be trusted to adhere to any treaty at all. The people must then act as they see fit. They could do anything they want from that point; all are acts of war between two Sovereign entities. But there are always consequences. They would have to live with their actions. They would understand that they are doing something against another Sovereign entity which might act to temper their actions accordingly. In our current system, we shuffle that responsibility off to "the rule of law." This displacement allows for some heinous crimes against humanity in our "justice system."

The key to appreciating what type of system I'm describing is in appreciating that we are all the Ultimate Authority of Ourselves. With this understanding we are automatically put into a mindset to not make line items in our treaties that will be direct violations of an Individuals Jurisdiction. When we recognize, on the most fundamental level, that each Individual is Sovereign, we don't go around making claims on each others Jurisdiction. But we also don't let other's invasion of ours by acts of war go unanswered either. In this way, a "system of law" becomes a "system of respect for ourselves and others." Each person then has the fundamental right to choose to comply. If they choose not to comply, there are consequences.

This is really no different than how things actually are right now. It's just that almost no one realizes it, so we get all these stupid laws that lay false claims on our Jurisdiction and we believe that is "Reality." We are all so confused on what is really going on. It is in this confusion that we are enslaved. In reality, we are not enslaved. There are just so many coercive efforts that create a Box around us that we can't see that we are already free to choose. It's just that our available choices have been limited by that Box.

A long answer to a short question. My favorite. :)

if the rule of law is to remain, whom else?

The problem I think, is in a misunderstanding what the "rule of law" is. This stems from a false understanding of what both "rule" and "law" really are.

Rule, in this case, means "to have authority over," or "make choices for." So then it would seem that Law has authority over us in a "rule of law" system. That is not true. Law doesn't actually exist. "Law" is bunch of words, written down in specific order, done ritualistically three times, that creates a "limit" that doesn't actually exist. This ritual, if done by the High Priests cause us to believe there is a limit, but It isn't a real limit, it is a contrived one. One piece of the Grand Illusion. These laws are created by people who claim authority over We The People. Because these limits are false (you can easily break any such "limit"), they must be enforced by coercion. "Comply with the limits we demand or else!"

Our entire system exists based on these ideas. Our current (mis)understandings of the Rule of Law are what ensure our slavery. No such system can exist that does not lead to slavery, no matter how well intended, because they all are based on the false claim of authority over the Jurisdiction of the Individual.

That doesn't mean there can't be any agreements that we follow; social guidelines. We call these "Treaties" when we talk about "Sovereign Nations." But like laws, a "nation" doesn't exist. A "Nation," like a law, is only defined when someone claims authority over the Jurisdictions of the Individuals of the "nation". The only true Sovereigns, AKA the Ultimate Authorities on this planet are the individual people. Each person has this authority over their own Jurisdiction (we call these "inalienable Rights," though that is a commonly misunderstood concept also). I think when enough people understand these fundamental facts, we will throw the "rule of law" right out the window.

So how would such "treaties" work in practice on the scale of Individuals? Well, another basic understanding we have lost is what "war" is. War is what Sovereigns do when they can't solve their problems any other way. A treaty violation between any two Sovereigns (or any larger group) is an act of war. But there are many different possible outcomes of war, not all of them involve killing.

So let's say there is a town I like the look of, and that town has a treaty that I must sign in order to be allowed to enter (or live there, etc.). One of the pieces of this treaty is that I'm not allowed to shoot my gun off in town (except in self defense) while I'm there. To me, that seems like a reasonable line item in the treaty. I agree to the rest of the line items as well so I sign it. I am not bound by the treaty. It isn't a "limit" because I can violate it. I know I can violate it, and everyone else knows I can violate it. There are no actual limits there. But I understand explicitly that if I violate that treaty there will be consequences. There are always consequences.

Let's say I get drunk one night and start shooting up the place in celebration. In this hypothetical I don't hurt anyone, but I did break the treaty that I chose to sign. That treaty violation is an act of war. I, the Ultimate Authority of my choices, have declared war on the town by violating the treaty. People within the town in return accept my declaration of war and act accordingly. I am then not surprised when I get hauled off to the jail and spend the night sleeping it off. I am not surprised when in the morning I am taken before someone the town has determined to be reasonable in adjudicating treaty violations and they tell me what they have determined the consequences for my treaty violation are. Upon hearing the adjudicators words, I can either comply, or disagree. I am the Ultimate Authority of Me after all. If I disagree, then the people of the town have a choice. They can either force me into jail (an act of war), force me to be dead (an act of war), or simply throw me out of the town, nary to return (also an act of war). These responses are all acts of war between two Sovereign entities in response to my initial act of war. In the act of my treaty violation (shooting my gun) I have shown that I can't comply with the treaty, but there was no harm no foul there. If I agree to some "time out," I can potentially be welcomed back into the community, agreeing once again to abide by the treaty. But if I reject their stated consequences, by not complying with the system put in place to adjudicate treaty violations, I have shown that I can't be trusted to adhere to any treaty at all. The people must then act as they see fit. They could do anything they want from that point; all are acts of war between two Sovereign entities. But there are always consequences. They would have to live with their actions. They would understand that they are doing something against another Sovereign entity which might act to temper their actions accordingly. In our current system, we shuffle that responsibility off to "the rule of law."

The key to appreciating what type of system I'm describing is in appreciating that we are all the Ultimate Authority of Ourselves. With this understanding we are automatically put into a mindset to not make line items in our treaties that will be direct violations of an Individuals Jurisdiction. When we recognize, on the most fundamental level, that each Individual is Sovereign, we don't go around making claims on each others Jurisdiction. But we also don't let other's invasion of ours by acts of war go unanswered either. In this way, a "system of law" becomes a "system of respect for ourselves and others." Each person then has the fundamental right to choose to comply. If they choose not to comply, there are consequences.

This is really no different than how things actually are right now. It's just that almost no one realizes it, so we get all these stupid laws that lay false claims on our Jurisdiction and we believe that is "Reality." We are all so confused on what is really going on. It is in this confusion that we are enslaved. In reality, we are not enslaved. There are just so many coercive efforts that create a Box around us that we can't see that we are already free to choose. It's just that our available choices have been limited by that Box.

A long answer to a short question. My favorite. :)