The Flawed Flawless Prime Law

On the surface the idea of a flawless prime law sounds fantastic. It’s easy to imagine how our goverment would work so much better and how our lives would be so much greater. However, as much as the creator Mark Hamilton tried to make the law flawless he obviously failed. Which is kind of ironic since he talks about the obvious in his videos.

His prime law simply allows too much interpretation by flawed men!

The law basically tries to remove man’s often flawed and agenda motivated thinking from our laws by removing the goverments ability to use any and all “initiatory force” against it’s people.

The idea is that the government could not be corrupted because no execption are or will ever be allowed.

HOWEVER, the law then adds an exception which is totally open to interpretation!!!

This exception is so vague that it’s interpretation basically destroys or negates the original idea behind the first part of the law which is to remove’s man’s often flawed and agenda motivated thinking from our laws.

I do applaud Mark Hamilton and his open mind and knowledge of people, politics, marking and world history. BUT his law obviously (hehe) needs work. I myself, and I hope anyone reading this, will try to help him perfect his law while keeping in mind that that ultimate goal is to remove flawed and agenda motivated thinking from our laws.

I believe we really only need to improve Article 2 of the law but I could be wrong. There may be problems with Article 1 and even Article 3 but the most obvious problem is Article 2.

Everyone wants to be safe, and it seems the only solution is for government protect us. So how do we allow our goverment to protect us while not allowing flawed men, with agendas, to distort, manipulate or even just unintentional misinterpret Article 2 of the prime law?

Can we add to the law in a basic way that allows for no missinterpretation? As Mark Hamilton states in his literature, “The only way to be free of man is to reduce law to it’s essence.”.

I find it’s easy to reduce a law to “it’s essence” when it’s a law that forbids something like Article 1 of the primal law. It’s so simple it’s nearly impossible to misinterpret or translate. For example, I’d translate it to mean that nobody, for any reason whatsoever, may use any physical or monitary punishment (force) on anyone for any reason whatsoever. (Except for Article 2!)

I believe my translation of the law keeps it’s essence intact. It’s basic, it’s simple, there’s almost no logical way to missunderstand it. But when you try to allow something conditionally like Article 2 does it’s much more difficult because there’s always an infinit amount of possible conditions and solutions.

For example, if someone break the first part of the prime law, how do we punish them? Is it an eye for an eye? Are punishments decided by flawed men with agendas?

Furthermore, how do we even determine if the first part of the prime law has been broken? Who decides what constitutes a force, a threat of force or a fraud?

Is the simple possession of weapons of mass distruction considered a threat or is only the action of threating to use them against someone a threat? Who decides?

The only solution I believe is to include how such things are determined in the law itself. And it seems that the only way to do that is by using jury of our peers, which most people seem to already accept as the only way to decide a person’s guild or innocence.

So perhaps, the way to fix Article 2 is to change it to something like:

Article 2:
Force, to be determined by the majority decision of a jury of twelve randomly selected people, is legal and justified only for the protection from those who violate Article 1.

Furthermore, we may want to change Article 1 to include how a violation is decided like:

Article 1:
No person, group of persons, or goverment shall initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against any individual’s self, property or contract. Anyone accussed of such a violation must be judged guilty or innocent by a majority decision of a jury of twelve randomly selected people. The jury members cannot be a member of the jury who decides the appropriate force to use against a guilty person. Furthermore, law inforcement must accuse a guilty party emmidiatly upon suspicion and may only use appropriate force to aprehend a suspect, which will be reviewed by another jury of twelve randomly selected people. Another jury of twelve randiomly selected people must determine, within 24 hours of the accusation, the amount of time law inforcement has to build a case to a maximum amount of 30 days, whether the accussed will be held in jail or allowed bail, as well as, where and when evidence will be presented, as well as they must insure that the accussed has been provided with ability to seek counsel. All accused must be allowed up to one year to prepare a defense if desired have have to right to
appeal for an extention from the aformentioned deciding jury.

As you can see the law is much more specific. I’d also change Article 3, and give people a way out just in case the unknown happens. I’d say to make it like:

No exceptions shall exist for Articles 1 & 2 and no goverment shall ever change these articles unless a nation vote is held where 90% of the people agree to the change and law enforment cannot convince a jury of twelve randomly selected people that the outcome manipulated.

I may even add a fourth Article, that outlines the privacy of people and the ability of law enforcement to seek warrants to investigate crimes by the of a randomly selected jury of 6 to 12 people. And how a jury determines if they crossed a line of some sorts.

With some work I think the essence can be found that improves current governements tremendously. Removing red tape and freeing people to work and prosper.

However, I do have MAJOR cocerns with new generations who have to compete against established businesses. Yes, people worked hard or their ancestors worked hard and it was their ancestors right to give their estates to their progeny. (is that the right word?) However, in my opinion, the earth should be owned by no man and free to all to cultivate.

In a prosperous society, soon there would be little to nothing left of the land to share. And only the strongest and oldest would surive. And OFTEN it’s not the strong but the ruthless who survive. IF law enforcement was infable then perhaps this wouldn’t be the case but until such time, we must protect the good from the bad who monopolize, steal and cheat in order to gain superiority and control of others. The only way to do this is to ensure new generations have the room to prosper and that old land is made available to them always.

In a capitilist society, competition is fierce which is good for consummers but difficult for those who start out with the least. I truly THINK (meaning I’m not sure) that we must balance the need for large companies to grow, expand and progress with the need to support new generations and provide them with the ability to easily “catch up” to those generations and estates grown and passed on from generation to generation.

I do not support the idea of continously aiding people who that will not help themselves. However, I do believe every child born on this planet derverse a piece of land to work and call home and should be provided with the minimum of tools to work the land and be at minimum self sufficient. This land should not be sellable land, to avoid people taking risks with the only life giving thing they are given at birth.

If a person falls ill, it’s not societies burden as a whole but I do believe communities should help one another. Nice friendly people in need I would hope would be shown kindness in return from others.

People make mistakes, but with land, they always have that to at least fall back on.

Perhaps at most, we could offer the poorest decision makers a limited amount of food and seeds. And maybe fuel depending on the climate of their land. But simply giving people money doesn’t seem to be the solution. These things are inexpensive and the basic essence of life, nothing more.

But how do we pay for food without charging taxes? Perhaps giving away food goes too far and this also must be a community based thing. Society as a whole cannot be responsible for a persons poor decisions. However, indiviual compassion I hope, would give people endless chances and provide each other with the bare necessities to survive.

Food, water and heat.

Perhaps, it could simply be a law. That anyone with the slightest means, who does not help a person who need and asks for it, with the basic essentials of life, would be found guilty and punished. Perhaps, more as a reminder that it’s the right thing to do then to punish those who have no moral foundation.

Yes, morality is a man’s flawed concept but it’s one most agree upon to some degree. And as a society we can choose to require a minimum amount of it to be a member. Perhaps anyone found guildy could choose punishement or banishment.

In the end a lot more thought must be given to the laws of our countries but I hope one day we all live by the same basic bare essence laws that are free from misinterpretation and corruption.

I have a headache now and I’m sure some of my thoughts and ideas near the end of my text need revising but it’s a start I hope.

PS. I stopped reading “The Get Rich Plan” or the Split-Run at about page 82 because it just kept repeating the same things over and over and over and over. Not fun is it. Maybe later it answers questions I’ve asked but I just couldn’t read the same thing again and again and again and again and again tired yet? and again and again!

Regards,
Darcy