I don’t believe that law is the optimum way of ordering our society. Debate me if you will, others have, proponents of law tend to become frustrated because my arguments against law are much stronger than theirs are in favor of it. Law is a crime against humanity and law is unnecessary because an infinitely superior method would be basing society’s response to wrongdoing on true human rights, instead of the fiction of a crime being ‘against the law’.
In truthorfiction discussions on law, my opponents often toss up ‘The Lord of the Flies’ as a prime example of why law is vital. <<Screech of Brakes>> ‘Lord of the Flies’ is a FICTION! The fictional fiction story supposes on what MIGHT happen on an island of boys. There are no case studies to back up the imaginary scenario and the fiction author wasn’t an irrefutable authority. Yet the fiction is held up as a proof positive of why law must exist. In other words, a line between truth and fiction is intentionally ignored. In the instance of ‘The Lord of the Flies’ fiction is fictional fiction.
Conversely, law is deemed to be truth, when it is ENTIRELY fictional. Truth resides in reality and fiction exists ONLY in the mind. Law is just a notion (and a bad one). Truthorfiction says so.
I’ll use a murder as an example. One person has killed another: that is truth. But the law supposes the murderer damaged the law against murder: that is utter fiction. A trial in a court of law asks ‘did the killer break the law’ and the true answer is ‘NO’ – even if the murderer did kill. A court of truth would ask ‘did the accused kill’. Can you see the difference between truth and fiction here? Many can’t (or more likely won’t) and then they either cite ‘The Lord of the Flies’ or suggest that I should move to Somalia. But I’m not an anarchy advocate—I’m a supporter of truth over fiction. (Who prefers writing fiction)
Law should be abolished in favor of a system of civil protection that is rooted on the truth and nothing but the truth. Law is as fictional as ‘The Lord of the Flies’ is.
