Datasets:

eastwind

/

finweb_sentences_10BT_40_char

like 0

What is EDT?: The EDT means ‘Essential Driving Training’. The EDT is relatively new and has been a topic of confusion for a lot of people in the past few years. Gone are the easy days that your parents or friends could teach you to drive. It may seem really daunting but believe us when we say that it is not that complicated. We at RSA School of Motoring are here to explain everything to you and give you the information you need to successfully complete your EDT training. Why was the EDT was introduced?: The EDT was introduced by the Government back in 2011 due to stats at the time that clearly showed that inexperienced young drivers were more at risk to themselves and others on the road. The EDT was designed to help young drivers become safer and more competent drivers. Each lesson focuses on each aspect of driving from correct positioning on the road to speed management. On completion of the EDT all new drivers will have the skills required to ensure the road is a safer place for everyone. EDT Lesson breakdown The 12 EDT lessons are set out like this: - Lesson 1: Car Controls and Safety Checks - Lesson 2: Correct Positioning - Lesson 3: Changing Direction - Lesson 4: Progression Management - Lesson 5: Correct Positioning (advanced) - Lesson 6: Anticipation and Reaction - Lesson 7: Sharing the Road - Lesson 8: Driving Safely Through Traffic - Lesson 9: Changing Direction (advanced) - Lesson 10: Speed Management - Lesson 11: Driving Calmly - Lesson 12: Night Driving Lessons 1-8 must be taken in the order shown above. Lessons 9-12 can be taken in any order. In order to complete your EDT taining and be eligible to apply for the driving test, all 12 lessons have to be completed with a filled in logbook as your proof. The logbook is given you when you take your first lesson with your approved driving instructor or ADI. The logbook must be kept safe at all times as it is an important document. Each lesson taken with your ADI will be logged in your logbook and also logged manually on the RSA portal website. Only an approved driving instructor can complete the logbook. There is space for your ADI to write comments after each lesson and pointers can be made on what you may need to work on to improve. This is an invaluable tool when furthering your practice and is also extremely helpful for your selected sponsor. Your sponsor is also encouraged to write in comments after each filler lesson. This way everyone will know what level the student is at. The logbook is used as proof of completion of each lesson of the EDT. What is a sponsor?: A sponsor is someone the learner driver can choose themselves like a parent, Aunt/Uncle or it can even be an approved driving instructor. The chosen sponsor must be an experienced driver and hold a full driver's license for at least 2 years. The role of the sponsor is to take the learner driver out on filler lessons. These filler lessons should be taken after each EDT lesson with your ADI. The purpose of the practice lesson is to practice what you have learnt and see if you have made any progress. Your sponsor should base your filler lessons around what comments your instructor has left in your logbook. This way the learner driver gets the most out of the lesson and focuses on what they need to improve on. If you have been asked to be a sponsor, it may be an advantage to look over the rules of the road ahead of the filler lessons to ensure you are more beneficial to your learner driver. This role should be taken seriously and if you feel you cannot commit your time or energy into it, just say no! At the end of the day if you are not committed to being a sponsor it will only stop the learner driver improving their driving skills and make the whole process longer than needed to be. Choosing a sponsor: A sponsor is someone the learner driver can choose themselves like a parent, Aunt/Uncle or it can even be your ADI. Whoever you choose it is purely your choice. The main thing you must ask yourself is, ‘Can i trust this person?’, ‘Will this person keep me calm or stress me out?’, ‘Will this person make time for me to practice with them?’. If the answer is no to any of these questions, ask someone else. Picking the right sponsor is really important so take some time to choose. If at any stage this person is not working for you, don't worry, you can always change to someone else. So you’ve completed all 12 EDT lessons with your ADI and completed filler lessons with your sponsor and having held your drivers permit for a minimum of 6 months you can finally apply for your drivers test. After you receive your test date, it is advised that you have some pretest lessons with your ADI. These lessons help you pass the test and give you an idea of the potential route you may be taken on. They really are invaluable lessons. Learning to drive is quite a daunting process but it doesn't have to be with the right school. At the RSA School of Motoring we are here to help you in any stage you are in, whether you are a complete beginner or just need some pointers on how to pass the test. Please feel free to look through our website for more information, some great deals and some real testimonials from our past students. Or us a ring and one of our friendly staff member will be happy to help.

<urn:uuid:92365b0c-e7ad-4bbe-a8b2-b3b8b82b7ffa>

CC-MAIN-2018-13

http://drivinglessonsleinster.ie/edt-what-is-it.html

s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2018-13/segments/1521257647892.89/warc/CC-MAIN-20180322151300-20180322171300-00710.warc.gz

en

<urn:uuid:92365b0c-e7ad-4bbe-a8b2-b3b8b82b7ffa>_17

Only an approved driving instructor can complete the logbook.

What is EDT?: The EDT means ‘Essential Driving Training’. The EDT is relatively new and has been a topic of confusion for a lot of people in the past few years. Gone are the easy days that your parents or friends could teach you to drive. It may seem really daunting but believe us when we say that it is not that complicated. We at RSA School of Motoring are here to explain everything to you and give you the information you need to successfully complete your EDT training. Why was the EDT was introduced?: The EDT was introduced by the Government back in 2011 due to stats at the time that clearly showed that inexperienced young drivers were more at risk to themselves and others on the road. The EDT was designed to help young drivers become safer and more competent drivers. Each lesson focuses on each aspect of driving from correct positioning on the road to speed management. On completion of the EDT all new drivers will have the skills required to ensure the road is a safer place for everyone. EDT Lesson breakdown The 12 EDT lessons are set out like this: - Lesson 1: Car Controls and Safety Checks - Lesson 2: Correct Positioning - Lesson 3: Changing Direction - Lesson 4: Progression Management - Lesson 5: Correct Positioning (advanced) - Lesson 6: Anticipation and Reaction - Lesson 7: Sharing the Road - Lesson 8: Driving Safely Through Traffic - Lesson 9: Changing Direction (advanced) - Lesson 10: Speed Management - Lesson 11: Driving Calmly - Lesson 12: Night Driving Lessons 1-8 must be taken in the order shown above. Lessons 9-12 can be taken in any order. In order to complete your EDT taining and be eligible to apply for the driving test, all 12 lessons have to be completed with a filled in logbook as your proof. The logbook is given you when you take your first lesson with your approved driving instructor or ADI. The logbook must be kept safe at all times as it is an important document. Each lesson taken with your ADI will be logged in your logbook and also logged manually on the RSA portal website. Only an approved driving instructor can complete the logbook. There is space for your ADI to write comments after each lesson and pointers can be made on what you may need to work on to improve. This is an invaluable tool when furthering your practice and is also extremely helpful for your selected sponsor. Your sponsor is also encouraged to write in comments after each filler lesson. This way everyone will know what level the student is at. The logbook is used as proof of completion of each lesson of the EDT. What is a sponsor?: A sponsor is someone the learner driver can choose themselves like a parent, Aunt/Uncle or it can even be an approved driving instructor. The chosen sponsor must be an experienced driver and hold a full driver's license for at least 2 years. The role of the sponsor is to take the learner driver out on filler lessons. These filler lessons should be taken after each EDT lesson with your ADI. The purpose of the practice lesson is to practice what you have learnt and see if you have made any progress. Your sponsor should base your filler lessons around what comments your instructor has left in your logbook. This way the learner driver gets the most out of the lesson and focuses on what they need to improve on. If you have been asked to be a sponsor, it may be an advantage to look over the rules of the road ahead of the filler lessons to ensure you are more beneficial to your learner driver. This role should be taken seriously and if you feel you cannot commit your time or energy into it, just say no! At the end of the day if you are not committed to being a sponsor it will only stop the learner driver improving their driving skills and make the whole process longer than needed to be. Choosing a sponsor: A sponsor is someone the learner driver can choose themselves like a parent, Aunt/Uncle or it can even be your ADI. Whoever you choose it is purely your choice. The main thing you must ask yourself is, ‘Can i trust this person?’, ‘Will this person keep me calm or stress me out?’, ‘Will this person make time for me to practice with them?’. If the answer is no to any of these questions, ask someone else. Picking the right sponsor is really important so take some time to choose. If at any stage this person is not working for you, don't worry, you can always change to someone else. So you’ve completed all 12 EDT lessons with your ADI and completed filler lessons with your sponsor and having held your drivers permit for a minimum of 6 months you can finally apply for your drivers test. After you receive your test date, it is advised that you have some pretest lessons with your ADI. These lessons help you pass the test and give you an idea of the potential route you may be taken on. They really are invaluable lessons. Learning to drive is quite a daunting process but it doesn't have to be with the right school. At the RSA School of Motoring we are here to help you in any stage you are in, whether you are a complete beginner or just need some pointers on how to pass the test. Please feel free to look through our website for more information, some great deals and some real testimonials from our past students. Or us a ring and one of our friendly staff member will be happy to help.

<urn:uuid:92365b0c-e7ad-4bbe-a8b2-b3b8b82b7ffa>

CC-MAIN-2018-13

http://drivinglessonsleinster.ie/edt-what-is-it.html

s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2018-13/segments/1521257647892.89/warc/CC-MAIN-20180322151300-20180322171300-00710.warc.gz

en

<urn:uuid:92365b0c-e7ad-4bbe-a8b2-b3b8b82b7ffa>_18

There is space for your ADI to write comments after each lesson and pointers can be made on what you may need to work on to improve.

What is EDT?: The EDT means ‘Essential Driving Training’. The EDT is relatively new and has been a topic of confusion for a lot of people in the past few years. Gone are the easy days that your parents or friends could teach you to drive. It may seem really daunting but believe us when we say that it is not that complicated. We at RSA School of Motoring are here to explain everything to you and give you the information you need to successfully complete your EDT training. Why was the EDT was introduced?: The EDT was introduced by the Government back in 2011 due to stats at the time that clearly showed that inexperienced young drivers were more at risk to themselves and others on the road. The EDT was designed to help young drivers become safer and more competent drivers. Each lesson focuses on each aspect of driving from correct positioning on the road to speed management. On completion of the EDT all new drivers will have the skills required to ensure the road is a safer place for everyone. EDT Lesson breakdown The 12 EDT lessons are set out like this: - Lesson 1: Car Controls and Safety Checks - Lesson 2: Correct Positioning - Lesson 3: Changing Direction - Lesson 4: Progression Management - Lesson 5: Correct Positioning (advanced) - Lesson 6: Anticipation and Reaction - Lesson 7: Sharing the Road - Lesson 8: Driving Safely Through Traffic - Lesson 9: Changing Direction (advanced) - Lesson 10: Speed Management - Lesson 11: Driving Calmly - Lesson 12: Night Driving Lessons 1-8 must be taken in the order shown above. Lessons 9-12 can be taken in any order. In order to complete your EDT taining and be eligible to apply for the driving test, all 12 lessons have to be completed with a filled in logbook as your proof. The logbook is given you when you take your first lesson with your approved driving instructor or ADI. The logbook must be kept safe at all times as it is an important document. Each lesson taken with your ADI will be logged in your logbook and also logged manually on the RSA portal website. Only an approved driving instructor can complete the logbook. There is space for your ADI to write comments after each lesson and pointers can be made on what you may need to work on to improve. This is an invaluable tool when furthering your practice and is also extremely helpful for your selected sponsor. Your sponsor is also encouraged to write in comments after each filler lesson. This way everyone will know what level the student is at. The logbook is used as proof of completion of each lesson of the EDT. What is a sponsor?: A sponsor is someone the learner driver can choose themselves like a parent, Aunt/Uncle or it can even be an approved driving instructor. The chosen sponsor must be an experienced driver and hold a full driver's license for at least 2 years. The role of the sponsor is to take the learner driver out on filler lessons. These filler lessons should be taken after each EDT lesson with your ADI. The purpose of the practice lesson is to practice what you have learnt and see if you have made any progress. Your sponsor should base your filler lessons around what comments your instructor has left in your logbook. This way the learner driver gets the most out of the lesson and focuses on what they need to improve on. If you have been asked to be a sponsor, it may be an advantage to look over the rules of the road ahead of the filler lessons to ensure you are more beneficial to your learner driver. This role should be taken seriously and if you feel you cannot commit your time or energy into it, just say no! At the end of the day if you are not committed to being a sponsor it will only stop the learner driver improving their driving skills and make the whole process longer than needed to be. Choosing a sponsor: A sponsor is someone the learner driver can choose themselves like a parent, Aunt/Uncle or it can even be your ADI. Whoever you choose it is purely your choice. The main thing you must ask yourself is, ‘Can i trust this person?’, ‘Will this person keep me calm or stress me out?’, ‘Will this person make time for me to practice with them?’. If the answer is no to any of these questions, ask someone else. Picking the right sponsor is really important so take some time to choose. If at any stage this person is not working for you, don't worry, you can always change to someone else. So you’ve completed all 12 EDT lessons with your ADI and completed filler lessons with your sponsor and having held your drivers permit for a minimum of 6 months you can finally apply for your drivers test. After you receive your test date, it is advised that you have some pretest lessons with your ADI. These lessons help you pass the test and give you an idea of the potential route you may be taken on. They really are invaluable lessons. Learning to drive is quite a daunting process but it doesn't have to be with the right school. At the RSA School of Motoring we are here to help you in any stage you are in, whether you are a complete beginner or just need some pointers on how to pass the test. Please feel free to look through our website for more information, some great deals and some real testimonials from our past students. Or us a ring and one of our friendly staff member will be happy to help.

<urn:uuid:92365b0c-e7ad-4bbe-a8b2-b3b8b82b7ffa>

CC-MAIN-2018-13

http://drivinglessonsleinster.ie/edt-what-is-it.html

s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2018-13/segments/1521257647892.89/warc/CC-MAIN-20180322151300-20180322171300-00710.warc.gz

en

<urn:uuid:92365b0c-e7ad-4bbe-a8b2-b3b8b82b7ffa>_19

This is an invaluable tool when furthering your practice and is also extremely helpful for your selected sponsor.

What is EDT?: The EDT means ‘Essential Driving Training’. The EDT is relatively new and has been a topic of confusion for a lot of people in the past few years. Gone are the easy days that your parents or friends could teach you to drive. It may seem really daunting but believe us when we say that it is not that complicated. We at RSA School of Motoring are here to explain everything to you and give you the information you need to successfully complete your EDT training. Why was the EDT was introduced?: The EDT was introduced by the Government back in 2011 due to stats at the time that clearly showed that inexperienced young drivers were more at risk to themselves and others on the road. The EDT was designed to help young drivers become safer and more competent drivers. Each lesson focuses on each aspect of driving from correct positioning on the road to speed management. On completion of the EDT all new drivers will have the skills required to ensure the road is a safer place for everyone. EDT Lesson breakdown The 12 EDT lessons are set out like this: - Lesson 1: Car Controls and Safety Checks - Lesson 2: Correct Positioning - Lesson 3: Changing Direction - Lesson 4: Progression Management - Lesson 5: Correct Positioning (advanced) - Lesson 6: Anticipation and Reaction - Lesson 7: Sharing the Road - Lesson 8: Driving Safely Through Traffic - Lesson 9: Changing Direction (advanced) - Lesson 10: Speed Management - Lesson 11: Driving Calmly - Lesson 12: Night Driving Lessons 1-8 must be taken in the order shown above. Lessons 9-12 can be taken in any order. In order to complete your EDT taining and be eligible to apply for the driving test, all 12 lessons have to be completed with a filled in logbook as your proof. The logbook is given you when you take your first lesson with your approved driving instructor or ADI. The logbook must be kept safe at all times as it is an important document. Each lesson taken with your ADI will be logged in your logbook and also logged manually on the RSA portal website. Only an approved driving instructor can complete the logbook. There is space for your ADI to write comments after each lesson and pointers can be made on what you may need to work on to improve. This is an invaluable tool when furthering your practice and is also extremely helpful for your selected sponsor. Your sponsor is also encouraged to write in comments after each filler lesson. This way everyone will know what level the student is at. The logbook is used as proof of completion of each lesson of the EDT. What is a sponsor?: A sponsor is someone the learner driver can choose themselves like a parent, Aunt/Uncle or it can even be an approved driving instructor. The chosen sponsor must be an experienced driver and hold a full driver's license for at least 2 years. The role of the sponsor is to take the learner driver out on filler lessons. These filler lessons should be taken after each EDT lesson with your ADI. The purpose of the practice lesson is to practice what you have learnt and see if you have made any progress. Your sponsor should base your filler lessons around what comments your instructor has left in your logbook. This way the learner driver gets the most out of the lesson and focuses on what they need to improve on. If you have been asked to be a sponsor, it may be an advantage to look over the rules of the road ahead of the filler lessons to ensure you are more beneficial to your learner driver. This role should be taken seriously and if you feel you cannot commit your time or energy into it, just say no! At the end of the day if you are not committed to being a sponsor it will only stop the learner driver improving their driving skills and make the whole process longer than needed to be. Choosing a sponsor: A sponsor is someone the learner driver can choose themselves like a parent, Aunt/Uncle or it can even be your ADI. Whoever you choose it is purely your choice. The main thing you must ask yourself is, ‘Can i trust this person?’, ‘Will this person keep me calm or stress me out?’, ‘Will this person make time for me to practice with them?’. If the answer is no to any of these questions, ask someone else. Picking the right sponsor is really important so take some time to choose. If at any stage this person is not working for you, don't worry, you can always change to someone else. So you’ve completed all 12 EDT lessons with your ADI and completed filler lessons with your sponsor and having held your drivers permit for a minimum of 6 months you can finally apply for your drivers test. After you receive your test date, it is advised that you have some pretest lessons with your ADI. These lessons help you pass the test and give you an idea of the potential route you may be taken on. They really are invaluable lessons. Learning to drive is quite a daunting process but it doesn't have to be with the right school. At the RSA School of Motoring we are here to help you in any stage you are in, whether you are a complete beginner or just need some pointers on how to pass the test. Please feel free to look through our website for more information, some great deals and some real testimonials from our past students. Or us a ring and one of our friendly staff member will be happy to help.

<urn:uuid:92365b0c-e7ad-4bbe-a8b2-b3b8b82b7ffa>

CC-MAIN-2018-13

http://drivinglessonsleinster.ie/edt-what-is-it.html

s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2018-13/segments/1521257647892.89/warc/CC-MAIN-20180322151300-20180322171300-00710.warc.gz

en

<urn:uuid:92365b0c-e7ad-4bbe-a8b2-b3b8b82b7ffa>_20

Your sponsor is also encouraged to write in comments after each filler lesson.

What is EDT?: The EDT means ‘Essential Driving Training’. The EDT is relatively new and has been a topic of confusion for a lot of people in the past few years. Gone are the easy days that your parents or friends could teach you to drive. It may seem really daunting but believe us when we say that it is not that complicated. We at RSA School of Motoring are here to explain everything to you and give you the information you need to successfully complete your EDT training. Why was the EDT was introduced?: The EDT was introduced by the Government back in 2011 due to stats at the time that clearly showed that inexperienced young drivers were more at risk to themselves and others on the road. The EDT was designed to help young drivers become safer and more competent drivers. Each lesson focuses on each aspect of driving from correct positioning on the road to speed management. On completion of the EDT all new drivers will have the skills required to ensure the road is a safer place for everyone. EDT Lesson breakdown The 12 EDT lessons are set out like this: - Lesson 1: Car Controls and Safety Checks - Lesson 2: Correct Positioning - Lesson 3: Changing Direction - Lesson 4: Progression Management - Lesson 5: Correct Positioning (advanced) - Lesson 6: Anticipation and Reaction - Lesson 7: Sharing the Road - Lesson 8: Driving Safely Through Traffic - Lesson 9: Changing Direction (advanced) - Lesson 10: Speed Management - Lesson 11: Driving Calmly - Lesson 12: Night Driving Lessons 1-8 must be taken in the order shown above. Lessons 9-12 can be taken in any order. In order to complete your EDT taining and be eligible to apply for the driving test, all 12 lessons have to be completed with a filled in logbook as your proof. The logbook is given you when you take your first lesson with your approved driving instructor or ADI. The logbook must be kept safe at all times as it is an important document. Each lesson taken with your ADI will be logged in your logbook and also logged manually on the RSA portal website. Only an approved driving instructor can complete the logbook. There is space for your ADI to write comments after each lesson and pointers can be made on what you may need to work on to improve. This is an invaluable tool when furthering your practice and is also extremely helpful for your selected sponsor. Your sponsor is also encouraged to write in comments after each filler lesson. This way everyone will know what level the student is at. The logbook is used as proof of completion of each lesson of the EDT. What is a sponsor?: A sponsor is someone the learner driver can choose themselves like a parent, Aunt/Uncle or it can even be an approved driving instructor. The chosen sponsor must be an experienced driver and hold a full driver's license for at least 2 years. The role of the sponsor is to take the learner driver out on filler lessons. These filler lessons should be taken after each EDT lesson with your ADI. The purpose of the practice lesson is to practice what you have learnt and see if you have made any progress. Your sponsor should base your filler lessons around what comments your instructor has left in your logbook. This way the learner driver gets the most out of the lesson and focuses on what they need to improve on. If you have been asked to be a sponsor, it may be an advantage to look over the rules of the road ahead of the filler lessons to ensure you are more beneficial to your learner driver. This role should be taken seriously and if you feel you cannot commit your time or energy into it, just say no! At the end of the day if you are not committed to being a sponsor it will only stop the learner driver improving their driving skills and make the whole process longer than needed to be. Choosing a sponsor: A sponsor is someone the learner driver can choose themselves like a parent, Aunt/Uncle or it can even be your ADI. Whoever you choose it is purely your choice. The main thing you must ask yourself is, ‘Can i trust this person?’, ‘Will this person keep me calm or stress me out?’, ‘Will this person make time for me to practice with them?’. If the answer is no to any of these questions, ask someone else. Picking the right sponsor is really important so take some time to choose. If at any stage this person is not working for you, don't worry, you can always change to someone else. So you’ve completed all 12 EDT lessons with your ADI and completed filler lessons with your sponsor and having held your drivers permit for a minimum of 6 months you can finally apply for your drivers test. After you receive your test date, it is advised that you have some pretest lessons with your ADI. These lessons help you pass the test and give you an idea of the potential route you may be taken on. They really are invaluable lessons. Learning to drive is quite a daunting process but it doesn't have to be with the right school. At the RSA School of Motoring we are here to help you in any stage you are in, whether you are a complete beginner or just need some pointers on how to pass the test. Please feel free to look through our website for more information, some great deals and some real testimonials from our past students. Or us a ring and one of our friendly staff member will be happy to help.

<urn:uuid:92365b0c-e7ad-4bbe-a8b2-b3b8b82b7ffa>

CC-MAIN-2018-13

http://drivinglessonsleinster.ie/edt-what-is-it.html

s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2018-13/segments/1521257647892.89/warc/CC-MAIN-20180322151300-20180322171300-00710.warc.gz

en

<urn:uuid:92365b0c-e7ad-4bbe-a8b2-b3b8b82b7ffa>_21

This way everyone will know what level the student is at.

What is EDT?: The EDT means ‘Essential Driving Training’. The EDT is relatively new and has been a topic of confusion for a lot of people in the past few years. Gone are the easy days that your parents or friends could teach you to drive. It may seem really daunting but believe us when we say that it is not that complicated. We at RSA School of Motoring are here to explain everything to you and give you the information you need to successfully complete your EDT training. Why was the EDT was introduced?: The EDT was introduced by the Government back in 2011 due to stats at the time that clearly showed that inexperienced young drivers were more at risk to themselves and others on the road. The EDT was designed to help young drivers become safer and more competent drivers. Each lesson focuses on each aspect of driving from correct positioning on the road to speed management. On completion of the EDT all new drivers will have the skills required to ensure the road is a safer place for everyone. EDT Lesson breakdown The 12 EDT lessons are set out like this: - Lesson 1: Car Controls and Safety Checks - Lesson 2: Correct Positioning - Lesson 3: Changing Direction - Lesson 4: Progression Management - Lesson 5: Correct Positioning (advanced) - Lesson 6: Anticipation and Reaction - Lesson 7: Sharing the Road - Lesson 8: Driving Safely Through Traffic - Lesson 9: Changing Direction (advanced) - Lesson 10: Speed Management - Lesson 11: Driving Calmly - Lesson 12: Night Driving Lessons 1-8 must be taken in the order shown above. Lessons 9-12 can be taken in any order. In order to complete your EDT taining and be eligible to apply for the driving test, all 12 lessons have to be completed with a filled in logbook as your proof. The logbook is given you when you take your first lesson with your approved driving instructor or ADI. The logbook must be kept safe at all times as it is an important document. Each lesson taken with your ADI will be logged in your logbook and also logged manually on the RSA portal website. Only an approved driving instructor can complete the logbook. There is space for your ADI to write comments after each lesson and pointers can be made on what you may need to work on to improve. This is an invaluable tool when furthering your practice and is also extremely helpful for your selected sponsor. Your sponsor is also encouraged to write in comments after each filler lesson. This way everyone will know what level the student is at. The logbook is used as proof of completion of each lesson of the EDT. What is a sponsor?: A sponsor is someone the learner driver can choose themselves like a parent, Aunt/Uncle or it can even be an approved driving instructor. The chosen sponsor must be an experienced driver and hold a full driver's license for at least 2 years. The role of the sponsor is to take the learner driver out on filler lessons. These filler lessons should be taken after each EDT lesson with your ADI. The purpose of the practice lesson is to practice what you have learnt and see if you have made any progress. Your sponsor should base your filler lessons around what comments your instructor has left in your logbook. This way the learner driver gets the most out of the lesson and focuses on what they need to improve on. If you have been asked to be a sponsor, it may be an advantage to look over the rules of the road ahead of the filler lessons to ensure you are more beneficial to your learner driver. This role should be taken seriously and if you feel you cannot commit your time or energy into it, just say no! At the end of the day if you are not committed to being a sponsor it will only stop the learner driver improving their driving skills and make the whole process longer than needed to be. Choosing a sponsor: A sponsor is someone the learner driver can choose themselves like a parent, Aunt/Uncle or it can even be your ADI. Whoever you choose it is purely your choice. The main thing you must ask yourself is, ‘Can i trust this person?’, ‘Will this person keep me calm or stress me out?’, ‘Will this person make time for me to practice with them?’. If the answer is no to any of these questions, ask someone else. Picking the right sponsor is really important so take some time to choose. If at any stage this person is not working for you, don't worry, you can always change to someone else. So you’ve completed all 12 EDT lessons with your ADI and completed filler lessons with your sponsor and having held your drivers permit for a minimum of 6 months you can finally apply for your drivers test. After you receive your test date, it is advised that you have some pretest lessons with your ADI. These lessons help you pass the test and give you an idea of the potential route you may be taken on. They really are invaluable lessons. Learning to drive is quite a daunting process but it doesn't have to be with the right school. At the RSA School of Motoring we are here to help you in any stage you are in, whether you are a complete beginner or just need some pointers on how to pass the test. Please feel free to look through our website for more information, some great deals and some real testimonials from our past students. Or us a ring and one of our friendly staff member will be happy to help.

<urn:uuid:92365b0c-e7ad-4bbe-a8b2-b3b8b82b7ffa>

CC-MAIN-2018-13

http://drivinglessonsleinster.ie/edt-what-is-it.html

s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2018-13/segments/1521257647892.89/warc/CC-MAIN-20180322151300-20180322171300-00710.warc.gz

en

<urn:uuid:92365b0c-e7ad-4bbe-a8b2-b3b8b82b7ffa>_22

The logbook is used as proof of completion of each lesson of the EDT.

What is EDT?: The EDT means ‘Essential Driving Training’. The EDT is relatively new and has been a topic of confusion for a lot of people in the past few years. Gone are the easy days that your parents or friends could teach you to drive. It may seem really daunting but believe us when we say that it is not that complicated. We at RSA School of Motoring are here to explain everything to you and give you the information you need to successfully complete your EDT training. Why was the EDT was introduced?: The EDT was introduced by the Government back in 2011 due to stats at the time that clearly showed that inexperienced young drivers were more at risk to themselves and others on the road. The EDT was designed to help young drivers become safer and more competent drivers. Each lesson focuses on each aspect of driving from correct positioning on the road to speed management. On completion of the EDT all new drivers will have the skills required to ensure the road is a safer place for everyone. EDT Lesson breakdown The 12 EDT lessons are set out like this: - Lesson 1: Car Controls and Safety Checks - Lesson 2: Correct Positioning - Lesson 3: Changing Direction - Lesson 4: Progression Management - Lesson 5: Correct Positioning (advanced) - Lesson 6: Anticipation and Reaction - Lesson 7: Sharing the Road - Lesson 8: Driving Safely Through Traffic - Lesson 9: Changing Direction (advanced) - Lesson 10: Speed Management - Lesson 11: Driving Calmly - Lesson 12: Night Driving Lessons 1-8 must be taken in the order shown above. Lessons 9-12 can be taken in any order. In order to complete your EDT taining and be eligible to apply for the driving test, all 12 lessons have to be completed with a filled in logbook as your proof. The logbook is given you when you take your first lesson with your approved driving instructor or ADI. The logbook must be kept safe at all times as it is an important document. Each lesson taken with your ADI will be logged in your logbook and also logged manually on the RSA portal website. Only an approved driving instructor can complete the logbook. There is space for your ADI to write comments after each lesson and pointers can be made on what you may need to work on to improve. This is an invaluable tool when furthering your practice and is also extremely helpful for your selected sponsor. Your sponsor is also encouraged to write in comments after each filler lesson. This way everyone will know what level the student is at. The logbook is used as proof of completion of each lesson of the EDT. What is a sponsor?: A sponsor is someone the learner driver can choose themselves like a parent, Aunt/Uncle or it can even be an approved driving instructor. The chosen sponsor must be an experienced driver and hold a full driver's license for at least 2 years. The role of the sponsor is to take the learner driver out on filler lessons. These filler lessons should be taken after each EDT lesson with your ADI. The purpose of the practice lesson is to practice what you have learnt and see if you have made any progress. Your sponsor should base your filler lessons around what comments your instructor has left in your logbook. This way the learner driver gets the most out of the lesson and focuses on what they need to improve on. If you have been asked to be a sponsor, it may be an advantage to look over the rules of the road ahead of the filler lessons to ensure you are more beneficial to your learner driver. This role should be taken seriously and if you feel you cannot commit your time or energy into it, just say no! At the end of the day if you are not committed to being a sponsor it will only stop the learner driver improving their driving skills and make the whole process longer than needed to be. Choosing a sponsor: A sponsor is someone the learner driver can choose themselves like a parent, Aunt/Uncle or it can even be your ADI. Whoever you choose it is purely your choice. The main thing you must ask yourself is, ‘Can i trust this person?’, ‘Will this person keep me calm or stress me out?’, ‘Will this person make time for me to practice with them?’. If the answer is no to any of these questions, ask someone else. Picking the right sponsor is really important so take some time to choose. If at any stage this person is not working for you, don't worry, you can always change to someone else. So you’ve completed all 12 EDT lessons with your ADI and completed filler lessons with your sponsor and having held your drivers permit for a minimum of 6 months you can finally apply for your drivers test. After you receive your test date, it is advised that you have some pretest lessons with your ADI. These lessons help you pass the test and give you an idea of the potential route you may be taken on. They really are invaluable lessons. Learning to drive is quite a daunting process but it doesn't have to be with the right school. At the RSA School of Motoring we are here to help you in any stage you are in, whether you are a complete beginner or just need some pointers on how to pass the test. Please feel free to look through our website for more information, some great deals and some real testimonials from our past students. Or us a ring and one of our friendly staff member will be happy to help.

<urn:uuid:92365b0c-e7ad-4bbe-a8b2-b3b8b82b7ffa>

CC-MAIN-2018-13

http://drivinglessonsleinster.ie/edt-what-is-it.html

s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2018-13/segments/1521257647892.89/warc/CC-MAIN-20180322151300-20180322171300-00710.warc.gz

en

<urn:uuid:92365b0c-e7ad-4bbe-a8b2-b3b8b82b7ffa>_24

: A sponsor is someone the learner driver can choose themselves like a parent, Aunt/Uncle or it can even be an approved driving instructor.

What is EDT?: The EDT means ‘Essential Driving Training’. The EDT is relatively new and has been a topic of confusion for a lot of people in the past few years. Gone are the easy days that your parents or friends could teach you to drive. It may seem really daunting but believe us when we say that it is not that complicated. We at RSA School of Motoring are here to explain everything to you and give you the information you need to successfully complete your EDT training. Why was the EDT was introduced?: The EDT was introduced by the Government back in 2011 due to stats at the time that clearly showed that inexperienced young drivers were more at risk to themselves and others on the road. The EDT was designed to help young drivers become safer and more competent drivers. Each lesson focuses on each aspect of driving from correct positioning on the road to speed management. On completion of the EDT all new drivers will have the skills required to ensure the road is a safer place for everyone. EDT Lesson breakdown The 12 EDT lessons are set out like this: - Lesson 1: Car Controls and Safety Checks - Lesson 2: Correct Positioning - Lesson 3: Changing Direction - Lesson 4: Progression Management - Lesson 5: Correct Positioning (advanced) - Lesson 6: Anticipation and Reaction - Lesson 7: Sharing the Road - Lesson 8: Driving Safely Through Traffic - Lesson 9: Changing Direction (advanced) - Lesson 10: Speed Management - Lesson 11: Driving Calmly - Lesson 12: Night Driving Lessons 1-8 must be taken in the order shown above. Lessons 9-12 can be taken in any order. In order to complete your EDT taining and be eligible to apply for the driving test, all 12 lessons have to be completed with a filled in logbook as your proof. The logbook is given you when you take your first lesson with your approved driving instructor or ADI. The logbook must be kept safe at all times as it is an important document. Each lesson taken with your ADI will be logged in your logbook and also logged manually on the RSA portal website. Only an approved driving instructor can complete the logbook. There is space for your ADI to write comments after each lesson and pointers can be made on what you may need to work on to improve. This is an invaluable tool when furthering your practice and is also extremely helpful for your selected sponsor. Your sponsor is also encouraged to write in comments after each filler lesson. This way everyone will know what level the student is at. The logbook is used as proof of completion of each lesson of the EDT. What is a sponsor?: A sponsor is someone the learner driver can choose themselves like a parent, Aunt/Uncle or it can even be an approved driving instructor. The chosen sponsor must be an experienced driver and hold a full driver's license for at least 2 years. The role of the sponsor is to take the learner driver out on filler lessons. These filler lessons should be taken after each EDT lesson with your ADI. The purpose of the practice lesson is to practice what you have learnt and see if you have made any progress. Your sponsor should base your filler lessons around what comments your instructor has left in your logbook. This way the learner driver gets the most out of the lesson and focuses on what they need to improve on. If you have been asked to be a sponsor, it may be an advantage to look over the rules of the road ahead of the filler lessons to ensure you are more beneficial to your learner driver. This role should be taken seriously and if you feel you cannot commit your time or energy into it, just say no! At the end of the day if you are not committed to being a sponsor it will only stop the learner driver improving their driving skills and make the whole process longer than needed to be. Choosing a sponsor: A sponsor is someone the learner driver can choose themselves like a parent, Aunt/Uncle or it can even be your ADI. Whoever you choose it is purely your choice. The main thing you must ask yourself is, ‘Can i trust this person?’, ‘Will this person keep me calm or stress me out?’, ‘Will this person make time for me to practice with them?’. If the answer is no to any of these questions, ask someone else. Picking the right sponsor is really important so take some time to choose. If at any stage this person is not working for you, don't worry, you can always change to someone else. So you’ve completed all 12 EDT lessons with your ADI and completed filler lessons with your sponsor and having held your drivers permit for a minimum of 6 months you can finally apply for your drivers test. After you receive your test date, it is advised that you have some pretest lessons with your ADI. These lessons help you pass the test and give you an idea of the potential route you may be taken on. They really are invaluable lessons. Learning to drive is quite a daunting process but it doesn't have to be with the right school. At the RSA School of Motoring we are here to help you in any stage you are in, whether you are a complete beginner or just need some pointers on how to pass the test. Please feel free to look through our website for more information, some great deals and some real testimonials from our past students. Or us a ring and one of our friendly staff member will be happy to help.

<urn:uuid:92365b0c-e7ad-4bbe-a8b2-b3b8b82b7ffa>

CC-MAIN-2018-13

http://drivinglessonsleinster.ie/edt-what-is-it.html

s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2018-13/segments/1521257647892.89/warc/CC-MAIN-20180322151300-20180322171300-00710.warc.gz

en

<urn:uuid:92365b0c-e7ad-4bbe-a8b2-b3b8b82b7ffa>_25

The chosen sponsor must be an experienced driver and hold a full driver's license for at least 2 years.

What is EDT?: The EDT means ‘Essential Driving Training’. The EDT is relatively new and has been a topic of confusion for a lot of people in the past few years. Gone are the easy days that your parents or friends could teach you to drive. It may seem really daunting but believe us when we say that it is not that complicated. We at RSA School of Motoring are here to explain everything to you and give you the information you need to successfully complete your EDT training. Why was the EDT was introduced?: The EDT was introduced by the Government back in 2011 due to stats at the time that clearly showed that inexperienced young drivers were more at risk to themselves and others on the road. The EDT was designed to help young drivers become safer and more competent drivers. Each lesson focuses on each aspect of driving from correct positioning on the road to speed management. On completion of the EDT all new drivers will have the skills required to ensure the road is a safer place for everyone. EDT Lesson breakdown The 12 EDT lessons are set out like this: - Lesson 1: Car Controls and Safety Checks - Lesson 2: Correct Positioning - Lesson 3: Changing Direction - Lesson 4: Progression Management - Lesson 5: Correct Positioning (advanced) - Lesson 6: Anticipation and Reaction - Lesson 7: Sharing the Road - Lesson 8: Driving Safely Through Traffic - Lesson 9: Changing Direction (advanced) - Lesson 10: Speed Management - Lesson 11: Driving Calmly - Lesson 12: Night Driving Lessons 1-8 must be taken in the order shown above. Lessons 9-12 can be taken in any order. In order to complete your EDT taining and be eligible to apply for the driving test, all 12 lessons have to be completed with a filled in logbook as your proof. The logbook is given you when you take your first lesson with your approved driving instructor or ADI. The logbook must be kept safe at all times as it is an important document. Each lesson taken with your ADI will be logged in your logbook and also logged manually on the RSA portal website. Only an approved driving instructor can complete the logbook. There is space for your ADI to write comments after each lesson and pointers can be made on what you may need to work on to improve. This is an invaluable tool when furthering your practice and is also extremely helpful for your selected sponsor. Your sponsor is also encouraged to write in comments after each filler lesson. This way everyone will know what level the student is at. The logbook is used as proof of completion of each lesson of the EDT. What is a sponsor?: A sponsor is someone the learner driver can choose themselves like a parent, Aunt/Uncle or it can even be an approved driving instructor. The chosen sponsor must be an experienced driver and hold a full driver's license for at least 2 years. The role of the sponsor is to take the learner driver out on filler lessons. These filler lessons should be taken after each EDT lesson with your ADI. The purpose of the practice lesson is to practice what you have learnt and see if you have made any progress. Your sponsor should base your filler lessons around what comments your instructor has left in your logbook. This way the learner driver gets the most out of the lesson and focuses on what they need to improve on. If you have been asked to be a sponsor, it may be an advantage to look over the rules of the road ahead of the filler lessons to ensure you are more beneficial to your learner driver. This role should be taken seriously and if you feel you cannot commit your time or energy into it, just say no! At the end of the day if you are not committed to being a sponsor it will only stop the learner driver improving their driving skills and make the whole process longer than needed to be. Choosing a sponsor: A sponsor is someone the learner driver can choose themselves like a parent, Aunt/Uncle or it can even be your ADI. Whoever you choose it is purely your choice. The main thing you must ask yourself is, ‘Can i trust this person?’, ‘Will this person keep me calm or stress me out?’, ‘Will this person make time for me to practice with them?’. If the answer is no to any of these questions, ask someone else. Picking the right sponsor is really important so take some time to choose. If at any stage this person is not working for you, don't worry, you can always change to someone else. So you’ve completed all 12 EDT lessons with your ADI and completed filler lessons with your sponsor and having held your drivers permit for a minimum of 6 months you can finally apply for your drivers test. After you receive your test date, it is advised that you have some pretest lessons with your ADI. These lessons help you pass the test and give you an idea of the potential route you may be taken on. They really are invaluable lessons. Learning to drive is quite a daunting process but it doesn't have to be with the right school. At the RSA School of Motoring we are here to help you in any stage you are in, whether you are a complete beginner or just need some pointers on how to pass the test. Please feel free to look through our website for more information, some great deals and some real testimonials from our past students. Or us a ring and one of our friendly staff member will be happy to help.

<urn:uuid:92365b0c-e7ad-4bbe-a8b2-b3b8b82b7ffa>

CC-MAIN-2018-13

http://drivinglessonsleinster.ie/edt-what-is-it.html

s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2018-13/segments/1521257647892.89/warc/CC-MAIN-20180322151300-20180322171300-00710.warc.gz

en

<urn:uuid:92365b0c-e7ad-4bbe-a8b2-b3b8b82b7ffa>_26

The role of the sponsor is to take the learner driver out on filler lessons.

What is EDT?: The EDT means ‘Essential Driving Training’. The EDT is relatively new and has been a topic of confusion for a lot of people in the past few years. Gone are the easy days that your parents or friends could teach you to drive. It may seem really daunting but believe us when we say that it is not that complicated. We at RSA School of Motoring are here to explain everything to you and give you the information you need to successfully complete your EDT training. Why was the EDT was introduced?: The EDT was introduced by the Government back in 2011 due to stats at the time that clearly showed that inexperienced young drivers were more at risk to themselves and others on the road. The EDT was designed to help young drivers become safer and more competent drivers. Each lesson focuses on each aspect of driving from correct positioning on the road to speed management. On completion of the EDT all new drivers will have the skills required to ensure the road is a safer place for everyone. EDT Lesson breakdown The 12 EDT lessons are set out like this: - Lesson 1: Car Controls and Safety Checks - Lesson 2: Correct Positioning - Lesson 3: Changing Direction - Lesson 4: Progression Management - Lesson 5: Correct Positioning (advanced) - Lesson 6: Anticipation and Reaction - Lesson 7: Sharing the Road - Lesson 8: Driving Safely Through Traffic - Lesson 9: Changing Direction (advanced) - Lesson 10: Speed Management - Lesson 11: Driving Calmly - Lesson 12: Night Driving Lessons 1-8 must be taken in the order shown above. Lessons 9-12 can be taken in any order. In order to complete your EDT taining and be eligible to apply for the driving test, all 12 lessons have to be completed with a filled in logbook as your proof. The logbook is given you when you take your first lesson with your approved driving instructor or ADI. The logbook must be kept safe at all times as it is an important document. Each lesson taken with your ADI will be logged in your logbook and also logged manually on the RSA portal website. Only an approved driving instructor can complete the logbook. There is space for your ADI to write comments after each lesson and pointers can be made on what you may need to work on to improve. This is an invaluable tool when furthering your practice and is also extremely helpful for your selected sponsor. Your sponsor is also encouraged to write in comments after each filler lesson. This way everyone will know what level the student is at. The logbook is used as proof of completion of each lesson of the EDT. What is a sponsor?: A sponsor is someone the learner driver can choose themselves like a parent, Aunt/Uncle or it can even be an approved driving instructor. The chosen sponsor must be an experienced driver and hold a full driver's license for at least 2 years. The role of the sponsor is to take the learner driver out on filler lessons. These filler lessons should be taken after each EDT lesson with your ADI. The purpose of the practice lesson is to practice what you have learnt and see if you have made any progress. Your sponsor should base your filler lessons around what comments your instructor has left in your logbook. This way the learner driver gets the most out of the lesson and focuses on what they need to improve on. If you have been asked to be a sponsor, it may be an advantage to look over the rules of the road ahead of the filler lessons to ensure you are more beneficial to your learner driver. This role should be taken seriously and if you feel you cannot commit your time or energy into it, just say no! At the end of the day if you are not committed to being a sponsor it will only stop the learner driver improving their driving skills and make the whole process longer than needed to be. Choosing a sponsor: A sponsor is someone the learner driver can choose themselves like a parent, Aunt/Uncle or it can even be your ADI. Whoever you choose it is purely your choice. The main thing you must ask yourself is, ‘Can i trust this person?’, ‘Will this person keep me calm or stress me out?’, ‘Will this person make time for me to practice with them?’. If the answer is no to any of these questions, ask someone else. Picking the right sponsor is really important so take some time to choose. If at any stage this person is not working for you, don't worry, you can always change to someone else. So you’ve completed all 12 EDT lessons with your ADI and completed filler lessons with your sponsor and having held your drivers permit for a minimum of 6 months you can finally apply for your drivers test. After you receive your test date, it is advised that you have some pretest lessons with your ADI. These lessons help you pass the test and give you an idea of the potential route you may be taken on. They really are invaluable lessons. Learning to drive is quite a daunting process but it doesn't have to be with the right school. At the RSA School of Motoring we are here to help you in any stage you are in, whether you are a complete beginner or just need some pointers on how to pass the test. Please feel free to look through our website for more information, some great deals and some real testimonials from our past students. Or us a ring and one of our friendly staff member will be happy to help.

<urn:uuid:92365b0c-e7ad-4bbe-a8b2-b3b8b82b7ffa>

CC-MAIN-2018-13

http://drivinglessonsleinster.ie/edt-what-is-it.html

s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2018-13/segments/1521257647892.89/warc/CC-MAIN-20180322151300-20180322171300-00710.warc.gz

en

<urn:uuid:92365b0c-e7ad-4bbe-a8b2-b3b8b82b7ffa>_27

These filler lessons should be taken after each EDT lesson with your ADI.

What is EDT?: The EDT means ‘Essential Driving Training’. The EDT is relatively new and has been a topic of confusion for a lot of people in the past few years. Gone are the easy days that your parents or friends could teach you to drive. It may seem really daunting but believe us when we say that it is not that complicated. We at RSA School of Motoring are here to explain everything to you and give you the information you need to successfully complete your EDT training. Why was the EDT was introduced?: The EDT was introduced by the Government back in 2011 due to stats at the time that clearly showed that inexperienced young drivers were more at risk to themselves and others on the road. The EDT was designed to help young drivers become safer and more competent drivers. Each lesson focuses on each aspect of driving from correct positioning on the road to speed management. On completion of the EDT all new drivers will have the skills required to ensure the road is a safer place for everyone. EDT Lesson breakdown The 12 EDT lessons are set out like this: - Lesson 1: Car Controls and Safety Checks - Lesson 2: Correct Positioning - Lesson 3: Changing Direction - Lesson 4: Progression Management - Lesson 5: Correct Positioning (advanced) - Lesson 6: Anticipation and Reaction - Lesson 7: Sharing the Road - Lesson 8: Driving Safely Through Traffic - Lesson 9: Changing Direction (advanced) - Lesson 10: Speed Management - Lesson 11: Driving Calmly - Lesson 12: Night Driving Lessons 1-8 must be taken in the order shown above. Lessons 9-12 can be taken in any order. In order to complete your EDT taining and be eligible to apply for the driving test, all 12 lessons have to be completed with a filled in logbook as your proof. The logbook is given you when you take your first lesson with your approved driving instructor or ADI. The logbook must be kept safe at all times as it is an important document. Each lesson taken with your ADI will be logged in your logbook and also logged manually on the RSA portal website. Only an approved driving instructor can complete the logbook. There is space for your ADI to write comments after each lesson and pointers can be made on what you may need to work on to improve. This is an invaluable tool when furthering your practice and is also extremely helpful for your selected sponsor. Your sponsor is also encouraged to write in comments after each filler lesson. This way everyone will know what level the student is at. The logbook is used as proof of completion of each lesson of the EDT. What is a sponsor?: A sponsor is someone the learner driver can choose themselves like a parent, Aunt/Uncle or it can even be an approved driving instructor. The chosen sponsor must be an experienced driver and hold a full driver's license for at least 2 years. The role of the sponsor is to take the learner driver out on filler lessons. These filler lessons should be taken after each EDT lesson with your ADI. The purpose of the practice lesson is to practice what you have learnt and see if you have made any progress. Your sponsor should base your filler lessons around what comments your instructor has left in your logbook. This way the learner driver gets the most out of the lesson and focuses on what they need to improve on. If you have been asked to be a sponsor, it may be an advantage to look over the rules of the road ahead of the filler lessons to ensure you are more beneficial to your learner driver. This role should be taken seriously and if you feel you cannot commit your time or energy into it, just say no! At the end of the day if you are not committed to being a sponsor it will only stop the learner driver improving their driving skills and make the whole process longer than needed to be. Choosing a sponsor: A sponsor is someone the learner driver can choose themselves like a parent, Aunt/Uncle or it can even be your ADI. Whoever you choose it is purely your choice. The main thing you must ask yourself is, ‘Can i trust this person?’, ‘Will this person keep me calm or stress me out?’, ‘Will this person make time for me to practice with them?’. If the answer is no to any of these questions, ask someone else. Picking the right sponsor is really important so take some time to choose. If at any stage this person is not working for you, don't worry, you can always change to someone else. So you’ve completed all 12 EDT lessons with your ADI and completed filler lessons with your sponsor and having held your drivers permit for a minimum of 6 months you can finally apply for your drivers test. After you receive your test date, it is advised that you have some pretest lessons with your ADI. These lessons help you pass the test and give you an idea of the potential route you may be taken on. They really are invaluable lessons. Learning to drive is quite a daunting process but it doesn't have to be with the right school. At the RSA School of Motoring we are here to help you in any stage you are in, whether you are a complete beginner or just need some pointers on how to pass the test. Please feel free to look through our website for more information, some great deals and some real testimonials from our past students. Or us a ring and one of our friendly staff member will be happy to help.

<urn:uuid:92365b0c-e7ad-4bbe-a8b2-b3b8b82b7ffa>

CC-MAIN-2018-13

http://drivinglessonsleinster.ie/edt-what-is-it.html

s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2018-13/segments/1521257647892.89/warc/CC-MAIN-20180322151300-20180322171300-00710.warc.gz

en

<urn:uuid:92365b0c-e7ad-4bbe-a8b2-b3b8b82b7ffa>_28

The purpose of the practice lesson is to practice what you have learnt and see if you have made any progress.

What is EDT?: The EDT means ‘Essential Driving Training’. The EDT is relatively new and has been a topic of confusion for a lot of people in the past few years. Gone are the easy days that your parents or friends could teach you to drive. It may seem really daunting but believe us when we say that it is not that complicated. We at RSA School of Motoring are here to explain everything to you and give you the information you need to successfully complete your EDT training. Why was the EDT was introduced?: The EDT was introduced by the Government back in 2011 due to stats at the time that clearly showed that inexperienced young drivers were more at risk to themselves and others on the road. The EDT was designed to help young drivers become safer and more competent drivers. Each lesson focuses on each aspect of driving from correct positioning on the road to speed management. On completion of the EDT all new drivers will have the skills required to ensure the road is a safer place for everyone. EDT Lesson breakdown The 12 EDT lessons are set out like this: - Lesson 1: Car Controls and Safety Checks - Lesson 2: Correct Positioning - Lesson 3: Changing Direction - Lesson 4: Progression Management - Lesson 5: Correct Positioning (advanced) - Lesson 6: Anticipation and Reaction - Lesson 7: Sharing the Road - Lesson 8: Driving Safely Through Traffic - Lesson 9: Changing Direction (advanced) - Lesson 10: Speed Management - Lesson 11: Driving Calmly - Lesson 12: Night Driving Lessons 1-8 must be taken in the order shown above. Lessons 9-12 can be taken in any order. In order to complete your EDT taining and be eligible to apply for the driving test, all 12 lessons have to be completed with a filled in logbook as your proof. The logbook is given you when you take your first lesson with your approved driving instructor or ADI. The logbook must be kept safe at all times as it is an important document. Each lesson taken with your ADI will be logged in your logbook and also logged manually on the RSA portal website. Only an approved driving instructor can complete the logbook. There is space for your ADI to write comments after each lesson and pointers can be made on what you may need to work on to improve. This is an invaluable tool when furthering your practice and is also extremely helpful for your selected sponsor. Your sponsor is also encouraged to write in comments after each filler lesson. This way everyone will know what level the student is at. The logbook is used as proof of completion of each lesson of the EDT. What is a sponsor?: A sponsor is someone the learner driver can choose themselves like a parent, Aunt/Uncle or it can even be an approved driving instructor. The chosen sponsor must be an experienced driver and hold a full driver's license for at least 2 years. The role of the sponsor is to take the learner driver out on filler lessons. These filler lessons should be taken after each EDT lesson with your ADI. The purpose of the practice lesson is to practice what you have learnt and see if you have made any progress. Your sponsor should base your filler lessons around what comments your instructor has left in your logbook. This way the learner driver gets the most out of the lesson and focuses on what they need to improve on. If you have been asked to be a sponsor, it may be an advantage to look over the rules of the road ahead of the filler lessons to ensure you are more beneficial to your learner driver. This role should be taken seriously and if you feel you cannot commit your time or energy into it, just say no! At the end of the day if you are not committed to being a sponsor it will only stop the learner driver improving their driving skills and make the whole process longer than needed to be. Choosing a sponsor: A sponsor is someone the learner driver can choose themselves like a parent, Aunt/Uncle or it can even be your ADI. Whoever you choose it is purely your choice. The main thing you must ask yourself is, ‘Can i trust this person?’, ‘Will this person keep me calm or stress me out?’, ‘Will this person make time for me to practice with them?’. If the answer is no to any of these questions, ask someone else. Picking the right sponsor is really important so take some time to choose. If at any stage this person is not working for you, don't worry, you can always change to someone else. So you’ve completed all 12 EDT lessons with your ADI and completed filler lessons with your sponsor and having held your drivers permit for a minimum of 6 months you can finally apply for your drivers test. After you receive your test date, it is advised that you have some pretest lessons with your ADI. These lessons help you pass the test and give you an idea of the potential route you may be taken on. They really are invaluable lessons. Learning to drive is quite a daunting process but it doesn't have to be with the right school. At the RSA School of Motoring we are here to help you in any stage you are in, whether you are a complete beginner or just need some pointers on how to pass the test. Please feel free to look through our website for more information, some great deals and some real testimonials from our past students. Or us a ring and one of our friendly staff member will be happy to help.

<urn:uuid:92365b0c-e7ad-4bbe-a8b2-b3b8b82b7ffa>

CC-MAIN-2018-13

http://drivinglessonsleinster.ie/edt-what-is-it.html

s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2018-13/segments/1521257647892.89/warc/CC-MAIN-20180322151300-20180322171300-00710.warc.gz

en

<urn:uuid:92365b0c-e7ad-4bbe-a8b2-b3b8b82b7ffa>_29

Your sponsor should base your filler lessons around what comments your instructor has left in your logbook.

What is EDT?: The EDT means ‘Essential Driving Training’. The EDT is relatively new and has been a topic of confusion for a lot of people in the past few years. Gone are the easy days that your parents or friends could teach you to drive. It may seem really daunting but believe us when we say that it is not that complicated. We at RSA School of Motoring are here to explain everything to you and give you the information you need to successfully complete your EDT training. Why was the EDT was introduced?: The EDT was introduced by the Government back in 2011 due to stats at the time that clearly showed that inexperienced young drivers were more at risk to themselves and others on the road. The EDT was designed to help young drivers become safer and more competent drivers. Each lesson focuses on each aspect of driving from correct positioning on the road to speed management. On completion of the EDT all new drivers will have the skills required to ensure the road is a safer place for everyone. EDT Lesson breakdown The 12 EDT lessons are set out like this: - Lesson 1: Car Controls and Safety Checks - Lesson 2: Correct Positioning - Lesson 3: Changing Direction - Lesson 4: Progression Management - Lesson 5: Correct Positioning (advanced) - Lesson 6: Anticipation and Reaction - Lesson 7: Sharing the Road - Lesson 8: Driving Safely Through Traffic - Lesson 9: Changing Direction (advanced) - Lesson 10: Speed Management - Lesson 11: Driving Calmly - Lesson 12: Night Driving Lessons 1-8 must be taken in the order shown above. Lessons 9-12 can be taken in any order. In order to complete your EDT taining and be eligible to apply for the driving test, all 12 lessons have to be completed with a filled in logbook as your proof. The logbook is given you when you take your first lesson with your approved driving instructor or ADI. The logbook must be kept safe at all times as it is an important document. Each lesson taken with your ADI will be logged in your logbook and also logged manually on the RSA portal website. Only an approved driving instructor can complete the logbook. There is space for your ADI to write comments after each lesson and pointers can be made on what you may need to work on to improve. This is an invaluable tool when furthering your practice and is also extremely helpful for your selected sponsor. Your sponsor is also encouraged to write in comments after each filler lesson. This way everyone will know what level the student is at. The logbook is used as proof of completion of each lesson of the EDT. What is a sponsor?: A sponsor is someone the learner driver can choose themselves like a parent, Aunt/Uncle or it can even be an approved driving instructor. The chosen sponsor must be an experienced driver and hold a full driver's license for at least 2 years. The role of the sponsor is to take the learner driver out on filler lessons. These filler lessons should be taken after each EDT lesson with your ADI. The purpose of the practice lesson is to practice what you have learnt and see if you have made any progress. Your sponsor should base your filler lessons around what comments your instructor has left in your logbook. This way the learner driver gets the most out of the lesson and focuses on what they need to improve on. If you have been asked to be a sponsor, it may be an advantage to look over the rules of the road ahead of the filler lessons to ensure you are more beneficial to your learner driver. This role should be taken seriously and if you feel you cannot commit your time or energy into it, just say no! At the end of the day if you are not committed to being a sponsor it will only stop the learner driver improving their driving skills and make the whole process longer than needed to be. Choosing a sponsor: A sponsor is someone the learner driver can choose themselves like a parent, Aunt/Uncle or it can even be your ADI. Whoever you choose it is purely your choice. The main thing you must ask yourself is, ‘Can i trust this person?’, ‘Will this person keep me calm or stress me out?’, ‘Will this person make time for me to practice with them?’. If the answer is no to any of these questions, ask someone else. Picking the right sponsor is really important so take some time to choose. If at any stage this person is not working for you, don't worry, you can always change to someone else. So you’ve completed all 12 EDT lessons with your ADI and completed filler lessons with your sponsor and having held your drivers permit for a minimum of 6 months you can finally apply for your drivers test. After you receive your test date, it is advised that you have some pretest lessons with your ADI. These lessons help you pass the test and give you an idea of the potential route you may be taken on. They really are invaluable lessons. Learning to drive is quite a daunting process but it doesn't have to be with the right school. At the RSA School of Motoring we are here to help you in any stage you are in, whether you are a complete beginner or just need some pointers on how to pass the test. Please feel free to look through our website for more information, some great deals and some real testimonials from our past students. Or us a ring and one of our friendly staff member will be happy to help.

<urn:uuid:92365b0c-e7ad-4bbe-a8b2-b3b8b82b7ffa>

CC-MAIN-2018-13

http://drivinglessonsleinster.ie/edt-what-is-it.html

s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2018-13/segments/1521257647892.89/warc/CC-MAIN-20180322151300-20180322171300-00710.warc.gz

en

<urn:uuid:92365b0c-e7ad-4bbe-a8b2-b3b8b82b7ffa>_30

This way the learner driver gets the most out of the lesson and focuses on what they need to improve on.

What is EDT?: The EDT means ‘Essential Driving Training’. The EDT is relatively new and has been a topic of confusion for a lot of people in the past few years. Gone are the easy days that your parents or friends could teach you to drive. It may seem really daunting but believe us when we say that it is not that complicated. We at RSA School of Motoring are here to explain everything to you and give you the information you need to successfully complete your EDT training. Why was the EDT was introduced?: The EDT was introduced by the Government back in 2011 due to stats at the time that clearly showed that inexperienced young drivers were more at risk to themselves and others on the road. The EDT was designed to help young drivers become safer and more competent drivers. Each lesson focuses on each aspect of driving from correct positioning on the road to speed management. On completion of the EDT all new drivers will have the skills required to ensure the road is a safer place for everyone. EDT Lesson breakdown The 12 EDT lessons are set out like this: - Lesson 1: Car Controls and Safety Checks - Lesson 2: Correct Positioning - Lesson 3: Changing Direction - Lesson 4: Progression Management - Lesson 5: Correct Positioning (advanced) - Lesson 6: Anticipation and Reaction - Lesson 7: Sharing the Road - Lesson 8: Driving Safely Through Traffic - Lesson 9: Changing Direction (advanced) - Lesson 10: Speed Management - Lesson 11: Driving Calmly - Lesson 12: Night Driving Lessons 1-8 must be taken in the order shown above. Lessons 9-12 can be taken in any order. In order to complete your EDT taining and be eligible to apply for the driving test, all 12 lessons have to be completed with a filled in logbook as your proof. The logbook is given you when you take your first lesson with your approved driving instructor or ADI. The logbook must be kept safe at all times as it is an important document. Each lesson taken with your ADI will be logged in your logbook and also logged manually on the RSA portal website. Only an approved driving instructor can complete the logbook. There is space for your ADI to write comments after each lesson and pointers can be made on what you may need to work on to improve. This is an invaluable tool when furthering your practice and is also extremely helpful for your selected sponsor. Your sponsor is also encouraged to write in comments after each filler lesson. This way everyone will know what level the student is at. The logbook is used as proof of completion of each lesson of the EDT. What is a sponsor?: A sponsor is someone the learner driver can choose themselves like a parent, Aunt/Uncle or it can even be an approved driving instructor. The chosen sponsor must be an experienced driver and hold a full driver's license for at least 2 years. The role of the sponsor is to take the learner driver out on filler lessons. These filler lessons should be taken after each EDT lesson with your ADI. The purpose of the practice lesson is to practice what you have learnt and see if you have made any progress. Your sponsor should base your filler lessons around what comments your instructor has left in your logbook. This way the learner driver gets the most out of the lesson and focuses on what they need to improve on. If you have been asked to be a sponsor, it may be an advantage to look over the rules of the road ahead of the filler lessons to ensure you are more beneficial to your learner driver. This role should be taken seriously and if you feel you cannot commit your time or energy into it, just say no! At the end of the day if you are not committed to being a sponsor it will only stop the learner driver improving their driving skills and make the whole process longer than needed to be. Choosing a sponsor: A sponsor is someone the learner driver can choose themselves like a parent, Aunt/Uncle or it can even be your ADI. Whoever you choose it is purely your choice. The main thing you must ask yourself is, ‘Can i trust this person?’, ‘Will this person keep me calm or stress me out?’, ‘Will this person make time for me to practice with them?’. If the answer is no to any of these questions, ask someone else. Picking the right sponsor is really important so take some time to choose. If at any stage this person is not working for you, don't worry, you can always change to someone else. So you’ve completed all 12 EDT lessons with your ADI and completed filler lessons with your sponsor and having held your drivers permit for a minimum of 6 months you can finally apply for your drivers test. After you receive your test date, it is advised that you have some pretest lessons with your ADI. These lessons help you pass the test and give you an idea of the potential route you may be taken on. They really are invaluable lessons. Learning to drive is quite a daunting process but it doesn't have to be with the right school. At the RSA School of Motoring we are here to help you in any stage you are in, whether you are a complete beginner or just need some pointers on how to pass the test. Please feel free to look through our website for more information, some great deals and some real testimonials from our past students. Or us a ring and one of our friendly staff member will be happy to help.

<urn:uuid:92365b0c-e7ad-4bbe-a8b2-b3b8b82b7ffa>

CC-MAIN-2018-13

http://drivinglessonsleinster.ie/edt-what-is-it.html

s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2018-13/segments/1521257647892.89/warc/CC-MAIN-20180322151300-20180322171300-00710.warc.gz

en

<urn:uuid:92365b0c-e7ad-4bbe-a8b2-b3b8b82b7ffa>_31

If you have been asked to be a sponsor, it may be an advantage to look over the rules of the road ahead of the filler lessons to ensure you are more beneficial to your learner driver.

What is EDT?: The EDT means ‘Essential Driving Training’. The EDT is relatively new and has been a topic of confusion for a lot of people in the past few years. Gone are the easy days that your parents or friends could teach you to drive. It may seem really daunting but believe us when we say that it is not that complicated. We at RSA School of Motoring are here to explain everything to you and give you the information you need to successfully complete your EDT training. Why was the EDT was introduced?: The EDT was introduced by the Government back in 2011 due to stats at the time that clearly showed that inexperienced young drivers were more at risk to themselves and others on the road. The EDT was designed to help young drivers become safer and more competent drivers. Each lesson focuses on each aspect of driving from correct positioning on the road to speed management. On completion of the EDT all new drivers will have the skills required to ensure the road is a safer place for everyone. EDT Lesson breakdown The 12 EDT lessons are set out like this: - Lesson 1: Car Controls and Safety Checks - Lesson 2: Correct Positioning - Lesson 3: Changing Direction - Lesson 4: Progression Management - Lesson 5: Correct Positioning (advanced) - Lesson 6: Anticipation and Reaction - Lesson 7: Sharing the Road - Lesson 8: Driving Safely Through Traffic - Lesson 9: Changing Direction (advanced) - Lesson 10: Speed Management - Lesson 11: Driving Calmly - Lesson 12: Night Driving Lessons 1-8 must be taken in the order shown above. Lessons 9-12 can be taken in any order. In order to complete your EDT taining and be eligible to apply for the driving test, all 12 lessons have to be completed with a filled in logbook as your proof. The logbook is given you when you take your first lesson with your approved driving instructor or ADI. The logbook must be kept safe at all times as it is an important document. Each lesson taken with your ADI will be logged in your logbook and also logged manually on the RSA portal website. Only an approved driving instructor can complete the logbook. There is space for your ADI to write comments after each lesson and pointers can be made on what you may need to work on to improve. This is an invaluable tool when furthering your practice and is also extremely helpful for your selected sponsor. Your sponsor is also encouraged to write in comments after each filler lesson. This way everyone will know what level the student is at. The logbook is used as proof of completion of each lesson of the EDT. What is a sponsor?: A sponsor is someone the learner driver can choose themselves like a parent, Aunt/Uncle or it can even be an approved driving instructor. The chosen sponsor must be an experienced driver and hold a full driver's license for at least 2 years. The role of the sponsor is to take the learner driver out on filler lessons. These filler lessons should be taken after each EDT lesson with your ADI. The purpose of the practice lesson is to practice what you have learnt and see if you have made any progress. Your sponsor should base your filler lessons around what comments your instructor has left in your logbook. This way the learner driver gets the most out of the lesson and focuses on what they need to improve on. If you have been asked to be a sponsor, it may be an advantage to look over the rules of the road ahead of the filler lessons to ensure you are more beneficial to your learner driver. This role should be taken seriously and if you feel you cannot commit your time or energy into it, just say no! At the end of the day if you are not committed to being a sponsor it will only stop the learner driver improving their driving skills and make the whole process longer than needed to be. Choosing a sponsor: A sponsor is someone the learner driver can choose themselves like a parent, Aunt/Uncle or it can even be your ADI. Whoever you choose it is purely your choice. The main thing you must ask yourself is, ‘Can i trust this person?’, ‘Will this person keep me calm or stress me out?’, ‘Will this person make time for me to practice with them?’. If the answer is no to any of these questions, ask someone else. Picking the right sponsor is really important so take some time to choose. If at any stage this person is not working for you, don't worry, you can always change to someone else. So you’ve completed all 12 EDT lessons with your ADI and completed filler lessons with your sponsor and having held your drivers permit for a minimum of 6 months you can finally apply for your drivers test. After you receive your test date, it is advised that you have some pretest lessons with your ADI. These lessons help you pass the test and give you an idea of the potential route you may be taken on. They really are invaluable lessons. Learning to drive is quite a daunting process but it doesn't have to be with the right school. At the RSA School of Motoring we are here to help you in any stage you are in, whether you are a complete beginner or just need some pointers on how to pass the test. Please feel free to look through our website for more information, some great deals and some real testimonials from our past students. Or us a ring and one of our friendly staff member will be happy to help.

<urn:uuid:92365b0c-e7ad-4bbe-a8b2-b3b8b82b7ffa>

CC-MAIN-2018-13

http://drivinglessonsleinster.ie/edt-what-is-it.html

s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2018-13/segments/1521257647892.89/warc/CC-MAIN-20180322151300-20180322171300-00710.warc.gz

en

<urn:uuid:92365b0c-e7ad-4bbe-a8b2-b3b8b82b7ffa>_32

This role should be taken seriously and if you feel you cannot commit your time or energy into it, just say no!

What is EDT?: The EDT means ‘Essential Driving Training’. The EDT is relatively new and has been a topic of confusion for a lot of people in the past few years. Gone are the easy days that your parents or friends could teach you to drive. It may seem really daunting but believe us when we say that it is not that complicated. We at RSA School of Motoring are here to explain everything to you and give you the information you need to successfully complete your EDT training. Why was the EDT was introduced?: The EDT was introduced by the Government back in 2011 due to stats at the time that clearly showed that inexperienced young drivers were more at risk to themselves and others on the road. The EDT was designed to help young drivers become safer and more competent drivers. Each lesson focuses on each aspect of driving from correct positioning on the road to speed management. On completion of the EDT all new drivers will have the skills required to ensure the road is a safer place for everyone. EDT Lesson breakdown The 12 EDT lessons are set out like this: - Lesson 1: Car Controls and Safety Checks - Lesson 2: Correct Positioning - Lesson 3: Changing Direction - Lesson 4: Progression Management - Lesson 5: Correct Positioning (advanced) - Lesson 6: Anticipation and Reaction - Lesson 7: Sharing the Road - Lesson 8: Driving Safely Through Traffic - Lesson 9: Changing Direction (advanced) - Lesson 10: Speed Management - Lesson 11: Driving Calmly - Lesson 12: Night Driving Lessons 1-8 must be taken in the order shown above. Lessons 9-12 can be taken in any order. In order to complete your EDT taining and be eligible to apply for the driving test, all 12 lessons have to be completed with a filled in logbook as your proof. The logbook is given you when you take your first lesson with your approved driving instructor or ADI. The logbook must be kept safe at all times as it is an important document. Each lesson taken with your ADI will be logged in your logbook and also logged manually on the RSA portal website. Only an approved driving instructor can complete the logbook. There is space for your ADI to write comments after each lesson and pointers can be made on what you may need to work on to improve. This is an invaluable tool when furthering your practice and is also extremely helpful for your selected sponsor. Your sponsor is also encouraged to write in comments after each filler lesson. This way everyone will know what level the student is at. The logbook is used as proof of completion of each lesson of the EDT. What is a sponsor?: A sponsor is someone the learner driver can choose themselves like a parent, Aunt/Uncle or it can even be an approved driving instructor. The chosen sponsor must be an experienced driver and hold a full driver's license for at least 2 years. The role of the sponsor is to take the learner driver out on filler lessons. These filler lessons should be taken after each EDT lesson with your ADI. The purpose of the practice lesson is to practice what you have learnt and see if you have made any progress. Your sponsor should base your filler lessons around what comments your instructor has left in your logbook. This way the learner driver gets the most out of the lesson and focuses on what they need to improve on. If you have been asked to be a sponsor, it may be an advantage to look over the rules of the road ahead of the filler lessons to ensure you are more beneficial to your learner driver. This role should be taken seriously and if you feel you cannot commit your time or energy into it, just say no! At the end of the day if you are not committed to being a sponsor it will only stop the learner driver improving their driving skills and make the whole process longer than needed to be. Choosing a sponsor: A sponsor is someone the learner driver can choose themselves like a parent, Aunt/Uncle or it can even be your ADI. Whoever you choose it is purely your choice. The main thing you must ask yourself is, ‘Can i trust this person?’, ‘Will this person keep me calm or stress me out?’, ‘Will this person make time for me to practice with them?’. If the answer is no to any of these questions, ask someone else. Picking the right sponsor is really important so take some time to choose. If at any stage this person is not working for you, don't worry, you can always change to someone else. So you’ve completed all 12 EDT lessons with your ADI and completed filler lessons with your sponsor and having held your drivers permit for a minimum of 6 months you can finally apply for your drivers test. After you receive your test date, it is advised that you have some pretest lessons with your ADI. These lessons help you pass the test and give you an idea of the potential route you may be taken on. They really are invaluable lessons. Learning to drive is quite a daunting process but it doesn't have to be with the right school. At the RSA School of Motoring we are here to help you in any stage you are in, whether you are a complete beginner or just need some pointers on how to pass the test. Please feel free to look through our website for more information, some great deals and some real testimonials from our past students. Or us a ring and one of our friendly staff member will be happy to help.

<urn:uuid:92365b0c-e7ad-4bbe-a8b2-b3b8b82b7ffa>

CC-MAIN-2018-13

http://drivinglessonsleinster.ie/edt-what-is-it.html

s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2018-13/segments/1521257647892.89/warc/CC-MAIN-20180322151300-20180322171300-00710.warc.gz

en

<urn:uuid:92365b0c-e7ad-4bbe-a8b2-b3b8b82b7ffa>_33

At the end of the day if you are not committed to being a sponsor it will only stop the learner driver improving their driving skills and make the whole process longer than needed to be.

What is EDT?: The EDT means ‘Essential Driving Training’. The EDT is relatively new and has been a topic of confusion for a lot of people in the past few years. Gone are the easy days that your parents or friends could teach you to drive. It may seem really daunting but believe us when we say that it is not that complicated. We at RSA School of Motoring are here to explain everything to you and give you the information you need to successfully complete your EDT training. Why was the EDT was introduced?: The EDT was introduced by the Government back in 2011 due to stats at the time that clearly showed that inexperienced young drivers were more at risk to themselves and others on the road. The EDT was designed to help young drivers become safer and more competent drivers. Each lesson focuses on each aspect of driving from correct positioning on the road to speed management. On completion of the EDT all new drivers will have the skills required to ensure the road is a safer place for everyone. EDT Lesson breakdown The 12 EDT lessons are set out like this: - Lesson 1: Car Controls and Safety Checks - Lesson 2: Correct Positioning - Lesson 3: Changing Direction - Lesson 4: Progression Management - Lesson 5: Correct Positioning (advanced) - Lesson 6: Anticipation and Reaction - Lesson 7: Sharing the Road - Lesson 8: Driving Safely Through Traffic - Lesson 9: Changing Direction (advanced) - Lesson 10: Speed Management - Lesson 11: Driving Calmly - Lesson 12: Night Driving Lessons 1-8 must be taken in the order shown above. Lessons 9-12 can be taken in any order. In order to complete your EDT taining and be eligible to apply for the driving test, all 12 lessons have to be completed with a filled in logbook as your proof. The logbook is given you when you take your first lesson with your approved driving instructor or ADI. The logbook must be kept safe at all times as it is an important document. Each lesson taken with your ADI will be logged in your logbook and also logged manually on the RSA portal website. Only an approved driving instructor can complete the logbook. There is space for your ADI to write comments after each lesson and pointers can be made on what you may need to work on to improve. This is an invaluable tool when furthering your practice and is also extremely helpful for your selected sponsor. Your sponsor is also encouraged to write in comments after each filler lesson. This way everyone will know what level the student is at. The logbook is used as proof of completion of each lesson of the EDT. What is a sponsor?: A sponsor is someone the learner driver can choose themselves like a parent, Aunt/Uncle or it can even be an approved driving instructor. The chosen sponsor must be an experienced driver and hold a full driver's license for at least 2 years. The role of the sponsor is to take the learner driver out on filler lessons. These filler lessons should be taken after each EDT lesson with your ADI. The purpose of the practice lesson is to practice what you have learnt and see if you have made any progress. Your sponsor should base your filler lessons around what comments your instructor has left in your logbook. This way the learner driver gets the most out of the lesson and focuses on what they need to improve on. If you have been asked to be a sponsor, it may be an advantage to look over the rules of the road ahead of the filler lessons to ensure you are more beneficial to your learner driver. This role should be taken seriously and if you feel you cannot commit your time or energy into it, just say no! At the end of the day if you are not committed to being a sponsor it will only stop the learner driver improving their driving skills and make the whole process longer than needed to be. Choosing a sponsor: A sponsor is someone the learner driver can choose themselves like a parent, Aunt/Uncle or it can even be your ADI. Whoever you choose it is purely your choice. The main thing you must ask yourself is, ‘Can i trust this person?’, ‘Will this person keep me calm or stress me out?’, ‘Will this person make time for me to practice with them?’. If the answer is no to any of these questions, ask someone else. Picking the right sponsor is really important so take some time to choose. If at any stage this person is not working for you, don't worry, you can always change to someone else. So you’ve completed all 12 EDT lessons with your ADI and completed filler lessons with your sponsor and having held your drivers permit for a minimum of 6 months you can finally apply for your drivers test. After you receive your test date, it is advised that you have some pretest lessons with your ADI. These lessons help you pass the test and give you an idea of the potential route you may be taken on. They really are invaluable lessons. Learning to drive is quite a daunting process but it doesn't have to be with the right school. At the RSA School of Motoring we are here to help you in any stage you are in, whether you are a complete beginner or just need some pointers on how to pass the test. Please feel free to look through our website for more information, some great deals and some real testimonials from our past students. Or us a ring and one of our friendly staff member will be happy to help.

<urn:uuid:92365b0c-e7ad-4bbe-a8b2-b3b8b82b7ffa>

CC-MAIN-2018-13

http://drivinglessonsleinster.ie/edt-what-is-it.html

s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2018-13/segments/1521257647892.89/warc/CC-MAIN-20180322151300-20180322171300-00710.warc.gz

en

<urn:uuid:92365b0c-e7ad-4bbe-a8b2-b3b8b82b7ffa>_34

Choosing a sponsor: A sponsor is someone the learner driver can choose themselves like a parent, Aunt/Uncle or it can even be your ADI.

What is EDT?: The EDT means ‘Essential Driving Training’. The EDT is relatively new and has been a topic of confusion for a lot of people in the past few years. Gone are the easy days that your parents or friends could teach you to drive. It may seem really daunting but believe us when we say that it is not that complicated. We at RSA School of Motoring are here to explain everything to you and give you the information you need to successfully complete your EDT training. Why was the EDT was introduced?: The EDT was introduced by the Government back in 2011 due to stats at the time that clearly showed that inexperienced young drivers were more at risk to themselves and others on the road. The EDT was designed to help young drivers become safer and more competent drivers. Each lesson focuses on each aspect of driving from correct positioning on the road to speed management. On completion of the EDT all new drivers will have the skills required to ensure the road is a safer place for everyone. EDT Lesson breakdown The 12 EDT lessons are set out like this: - Lesson 1: Car Controls and Safety Checks - Lesson 2: Correct Positioning - Lesson 3: Changing Direction - Lesson 4: Progression Management - Lesson 5: Correct Positioning (advanced) - Lesson 6: Anticipation and Reaction - Lesson 7: Sharing the Road - Lesson 8: Driving Safely Through Traffic - Lesson 9: Changing Direction (advanced) - Lesson 10: Speed Management - Lesson 11: Driving Calmly - Lesson 12: Night Driving Lessons 1-8 must be taken in the order shown above. Lessons 9-12 can be taken in any order. In order to complete your EDT taining and be eligible to apply for the driving test, all 12 lessons have to be completed with a filled in logbook as your proof. The logbook is given you when you take your first lesson with your approved driving instructor or ADI. The logbook must be kept safe at all times as it is an important document. Each lesson taken with your ADI will be logged in your logbook and also logged manually on the RSA portal website. Only an approved driving instructor can complete the logbook. There is space for your ADI to write comments after each lesson and pointers can be made on what you may need to work on to improve. This is an invaluable tool when furthering your practice and is also extremely helpful for your selected sponsor. Your sponsor is also encouraged to write in comments after each filler lesson. This way everyone will know what level the student is at. The logbook is used as proof of completion of each lesson of the EDT. What is a sponsor?: A sponsor is someone the learner driver can choose themselves like a parent, Aunt/Uncle or it can even be an approved driving instructor. The chosen sponsor must be an experienced driver and hold a full driver's license for at least 2 years. The role of the sponsor is to take the learner driver out on filler lessons. These filler lessons should be taken after each EDT lesson with your ADI. The purpose of the practice lesson is to practice what you have learnt and see if you have made any progress. Your sponsor should base your filler lessons around what comments your instructor has left in your logbook. This way the learner driver gets the most out of the lesson and focuses on what they need to improve on. If you have been asked to be a sponsor, it may be an advantage to look over the rules of the road ahead of the filler lessons to ensure you are more beneficial to your learner driver. This role should be taken seriously and if you feel you cannot commit your time or energy into it, just say no! At the end of the day if you are not committed to being a sponsor it will only stop the learner driver improving their driving skills and make the whole process longer than needed to be. Choosing a sponsor: A sponsor is someone the learner driver can choose themselves like a parent, Aunt/Uncle or it can even be your ADI. Whoever you choose it is purely your choice. The main thing you must ask yourself is, ‘Can i trust this person?’, ‘Will this person keep me calm or stress me out?’, ‘Will this person make time for me to practice with them?’. If the answer is no to any of these questions, ask someone else. Picking the right sponsor is really important so take some time to choose. If at any stage this person is not working for you, don't worry, you can always change to someone else. So you’ve completed all 12 EDT lessons with your ADI and completed filler lessons with your sponsor and having held your drivers permit for a minimum of 6 months you can finally apply for your drivers test. After you receive your test date, it is advised that you have some pretest lessons with your ADI. These lessons help you pass the test and give you an idea of the potential route you may be taken on. They really are invaluable lessons. Learning to drive is quite a daunting process but it doesn't have to be with the right school. At the RSA School of Motoring we are here to help you in any stage you are in, whether you are a complete beginner or just need some pointers on how to pass the test. Please feel free to look through our website for more information, some great deals and some real testimonials from our past students. Or us a ring and one of our friendly staff member will be happy to help.

<urn:uuid:92365b0c-e7ad-4bbe-a8b2-b3b8b82b7ffa>

CC-MAIN-2018-13

http://drivinglessonsleinster.ie/edt-what-is-it.html

s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2018-13/segments/1521257647892.89/warc/CC-MAIN-20180322151300-20180322171300-00710.warc.gz

en

<urn:uuid:92365b0c-e7ad-4bbe-a8b2-b3b8b82b7ffa>_35

Whoever you choose it is purely your choice.

What is EDT?: The EDT means ‘Essential Driving Training’. The EDT is relatively new and has been a topic of confusion for a lot of people in the past few years. Gone are the easy days that your parents or friends could teach you to drive. It may seem really daunting but believe us when we say that it is not that complicated. We at RSA School of Motoring are here to explain everything to you and give you the information you need to successfully complete your EDT training. Why was the EDT was introduced?: The EDT was introduced by the Government back in 2011 due to stats at the time that clearly showed that inexperienced young drivers were more at risk to themselves and others on the road. The EDT was designed to help young drivers become safer and more competent drivers. Each lesson focuses on each aspect of driving from correct positioning on the road to speed management. On completion of the EDT all new drivers will have the skills required to ensure the road is a safer place for everyone. EDT Lesson breakdown The 12 EDT lessons are set out like this: - Lesson 1: Car Controls and Safety Checks - Lesson 2: Correct Positioning - Lesson 3: Changing Direction - Lesson 4: Progression Management - Lesson 5: Correct Positioning (advanced) - Lesson 6: Anticipation and Reaction - Lesson 7: Sharing the Road - Lesson 8: Driving Safely Through Traffic - Lesson 9: Changing Direction (advanced) - Lesson 10: Speed Management - Lesson 11: Driving Calmly - Lesson 12: Night Driving Lessons 1-8 must be taken in the order shown above. Lessons 9-12 can be taken in any order. In order to complete your EDT taining and be eligible to apply for the driving test, all 12 lessons have to be completed with a filled in logbook as your proof. The logbook is given you when you take your first lesson with your approved driving instructor or ADI. The logbook must be kept safe at all times as it is an important document. Each lesson taken with your ADI will be logged in your logbook and also logged manually on the RSA portal website. Only an approved driving instructor can complete the logbook. There is space for your ADI to write comments after each lesson and pointers can be made on what you may need to work on to improve. This is an invaluable tool when furthering your practice and is also extremely helpful for your selected sponsor. Your sponsor is also encouraged to write in comments after each filler lesson. This way everyone will know what level the student is at. The logbook is used as proof of completion of each lesson of the EDT. What is a sponsor?: A sponsor is someone the learner driver can choose themselves like a parent, Aunt/Uncle or it can even be an approved driving instructor. The chosen sponsor must be an experienced driver and hold a full driver's license for at least 2 years. The role of the sponsor is to take the learner driver out on filler lessons. These filler lessons should be taken after each EDT lesson with your ADI. The purpose of the practice lesson is to practice what you have learnt and see if you have made any progress. Your sponsor should base your filler lessons around what comments your instructor has left in your logbook. This way the learner driver gets the most out of the lesson and focuses on what they need to improve on. If you have been asked to be a sponsor, it may be an advantage to look over the rules of the road ahead of the filler lessons to ensure you are more beneficial to your learner driver. This role should be taken seriously and if you feel you cannot commit your time or energy into it, just say no! At the end of the day if you are not committed to being a sponsor it will only stop the learner driver improving their driving skills and make the whole process longer than needed to be. Choosing a sponsor: A sponsor is someone the learner driver can choose themselves like a parent, Aunt/Uncle or it can even be your ADI. Whoever you choose it is purely your choice. The main thing you must ask yourself is, ‘Can i trust this person?’, ‘Will this person keep me calm or stress me out?’, ‘Will this person make time for me to practice with them?’. If the answer is no to any of these questions, ask someone else. Picking the right sponsor is really important so take some time to choose. If at any stage this person is not working for you, don't worry, you can always change to someone else. So you’ve completed all 12 EDT lessons with your ADI and completed filler lessons with your sponsor and having held your drivers permit for a minimum of 6 months you can finally apply for your drivers test. After you receive your test date, it is advised that you have some pretest lessons with your ADI. These lessons help you pass the test and give you an idea of the potential route you may be taken on. They really are invaluable lessons. Learning to drive is quite a daunting process but it doesn't have to be with the right school. At the RSA School of Motoring we are here to help you in any stage you are in, whether you are a complete beginner or just need some pointers on how to pass the test. Please feel free to look through our website for more information, some great deals and some real testimonials from our past students. Or us a ring and one of our friendly staff member will be happy to help.

<urn:uuid:92365b0c-e7ad-4bbe-a8b2-b3b8b82b7ffa>

CC-MAIN-2018-13

http://drivinglessonsleinster.ie/edt-what-is-it.html

s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2018-13/segments/1521257647892.89/warc/CC-MAIN-20180322151300-20180322171300-00710.warc.gz

en

<urn:uuid:92365b0c-e7ad-4bbe-a8b2-b3b8b82b7ffa>_36

The main thing you must ask yourself is, ‘Can i trust this person?’, ‘Will this person keep me calm or stress me out?’, ‘Will this person make time for me to practice with them?’.

What is EDT?: The EDT means ‘Essential Driving Training’. The EDT is relatively new and has been a topic of confusion for a lot of people in the past few years. Gone are the easy days that your parents or friends could teach you to drive. It may seem really daunting but believe us when we say that it is not that complicated. We at RSA School of Motoring are here to explain everything to you and give you the information you need to successfully complete your EDT training. Why was the EDT was introduced?: The EDT was introduced by the Government back in 2011 due to stats at the time that clearly showed that inexperienced young drivers were more at risk to themselves and others on the road. The EDT was designed to help young drivers become safer and more competent drivers. Each lesson focuses on each aspect of driving from correct positioning on the road to speed management. On completion of the EDT all new drivers will have the skills required to ensure the road is a safer place for everyone. EDT Lesson breakdown The 12 EDT lessons are set out like this: - Lesson 1: Car Controls and Safety Checks - Lesson 2: Correct Positioning - Lesson 3: Changing Direction - Lesson 4: Progression Management - Lesson 5: Correct Positioning (advanced) - Lesson 6: Anticipation and Reaction - Lesson 7: Sharing the Road - Lesson 8: Driving Safely Through Traffic - Lesson 9: Changing Direction (advanced) - Lesson 10: Speed Management - Lesson 11: Driving Calmly - Lesson 12: Night Driving Lessons 1-8 must be taken in the order shown above. Lessons 9-12 can be taken in any order. In order to complete your EDT taining and be eligible to apply for the driving test, all 12 lessons have to be completed with a filled in logbook as your proof. The logbook is given you when you take your first lesson with your approved driving instructor or ADI. The logbook must be kept safe at all times as it is an important document. Each lesson taken with your ADI will be logged in your logbook and also logged manually on the RSA portal website. Only an approved driving instructor can complete the logbook. There is space for your ADI to write comments after each lesson and pointers can be made on what you may need to work on to improve. This is an invaluable tool when furthering your practice and is also extremely helpful for your selected sponsor. Your sponsor is also encouraged to write in comments after each filler lesson. This way everyone will know what level the student is at. The logbook is used as proof of completion of each lesson of the EDT. What is a sponsor?: A sponsor is someone the learner driver can choose themselves like a parent, Aunt/Uncle or it can even be an approved driving instructor. The chosen sponsor must be an experienced driver and hold a full driver's license for at least 2 years. The role of the sponsor is to take the learner driver out on filler lessons. These filler lessons should be taken after each EDT lesson with your ADI. The purpose of the practice lesson is to practice what you have learnt and see if you have made any progress. Your sponsor should base your filler lessons around what comments your instructor has left in your logbook. This way the learner driver gets the most out of the lesson and focuses on what they need to improve on. If you have been asked to be a sponsor, it may be an advantage to look over the rules of the road ahead of the filler lessons to ensure you are more beneficial to your learner driver. This role should be taken seriously and if you feel you cannot commit your time or energy into it, just say no! At the end of the day if you are not committed to being a sponsor it will only stop the learner driver improving their driving skills and make the whole process longer than needed to be. Choosing a sponsor: A sponsor is someone the learner driver can choose themselves like a parent, Aunt/Uncle or it can even be your ADI. Whoever you choose it is purely your choice. The main thing you must ask yourself is, ‘Can i trust this person?’, ‘Will this person keep me calm or stress me out?’, ‘Will this person make time for me to practice with them?’. If the answer is no to any of these questions, ask someone else. Picking the right sponsor is really important so take some time to choose. If at any stage this person is not working for you, don't worry, you can always change to someone else. So you’ve completed all 12 EDT lessons with your ADI and completed filler lessons with your sponsor and having held your drivers permit for a minimum of 6 months you can finally apply for your drivers test. After you receive your test date, it is advised that you have some pretest lessons with your ADI. These lessons help you pass the test and give you an idea of the potential route you may be taken on. They really are invaluable lessons. Learning to drive is quite a daunting process but it doesn't have to be with the right school. At the RSA School of Motoring we are here to help you in any stage you are in, whether you are a complete beginner or just need some pointers on how to pass the test. Please feel free to look through our website for more information, some great deals and some real testimonials from our past students. Or us a ring and one of our friendly staff member will be happy to help.

<urn:uuid:92365b0c-e7ad-4bbe-a8b2-b3b8b82b7ffa>

CC-MAIN-2018-13

http://drivinglessonsleinster.ie/edt-what-is-it.html

s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2018-13/segments/1521257647892.89/warc/CC-MAIN-20180322151300-20180322171300-00710.warc.gz

en

<urn:uuid:92365b0c-e7ad-4bbe-a8b2-b3b8b82b7ffa>_37

If the answer is no to any of these questions, ask someone else.

What is EDT?: The EDT means ‘Essential Driving Training’. The EDT is relatively new and has been a topic of confusion for a lot of people in the past few years. Gone are the easy days that your parents or friends could teach you to drive. It may seem really daunting but believe us when we say that it is not that complicated. We at RSA School of Motoring are here to explain everything to you and give you the information you need to successfully complete your EDT training. Why was the EDT was introduced?: The EDT was introduced by the Government back in 2011 due to stats at the time that clearly showed that inexperienced young drivers were more at risk to themselves and others on the road. The EDT was designed to help young drivers become safer and more competent drivers. Each lesson focuses on each aspect of driving from correct positioning on the road to speed management. On completion of the EDT all new drivers will have the skills required to ensure the road is a safer place for everyone. EDT Lesson breakdown The 12 EDT lessons are set out like this: - Lesson 1: Car Controls and Safety Checks - Lesson 2: Correct Positioning - Lesson 3: Changing Direction - Lesson 4: Progression Management - Lesson 5: Correct Positioning (advanced) - Lesson 6: Anticipation and Reaction - Lesson 7: Sharing the Road - Lesson 8: Driving Safely Through Traffic - Lesson 9: Changing Direction (advanced) - Lesson 10: Speed Management - Lesson 11: Driving Calmly - Lesson 12: Night Driving Lessons 1-8 must be taken in the order shown above. Lessons 9-12 can be taken in any order. In order to complete your EDT taining and be eligible to apply for the driving test, all 12 lessons have to be completed with a filled in logbook as your proof. The logbook is given you when you take your first lesson with your approved driving instructor or ADI. The logbook must be kept safe at all times as it is an important document. Each lesson taken with your ADI will be logged in your logbook and also logged manually on the RSA portal website. Only an approved driving instructor can complete the logbook. There is space for your ADI to write comments after each lesson and pointers can be made on what you may need to work on to improve. This is an invaluable tool when furthering your practice and is also extremely helpful for your selected sponsor. Your sponsor is also encouraged to write in comments after each filler lesson. This way everyone will know what level the student is at. The logbook is used as proof of completion of each lesson of the EDT. What is a sponsor?: A sponsor is someone the learner driver can choose themselves like a parent, Aunt/Uncle or it can even be an approved driving instructor. The chosen sponsor must be an experienced driver and hold a full driver's license for at least 2 years. The role of the sponsor is to take the learner driver out on filler lessons. These filler lessons should be taken after each EDT lesson with your ADI. The purpose of the practice lesson is to practice what you have learnt and see if you have made any progress. Your sponsor should base your filler lessons around what comments your instructor has left in your logbook. This way the learner driver gets the most out of the lesson and focuses on what they need to improve on. If you have been asked to be a sponsor, it may be an advantage to look over the rules of the road ahead of the filler lessons to ensure you are more beneficial to your learner driver. This role should be taken seriously and if you feel you cannot commit your time or energy into it, just say no! At the end of the day if you are not committed to being a sponsor it will only stop the learner driver improving their driving skills and make the whole process longer than needed to be. Choosing a sponsor: A sponsor is someone the learner driver can choose themselves like a parent, Aunt/Uncle or it can even be your ADI. Whoever you choose it is purely your choice. The main thing you must ask yourself is, ‘Can i trust this person?’, ‘Will this person keep me calm or stress me out?’, ‘Will this person make time for me to practice with them?’. If the answer is no to any of these questions, ask someone else. Picking the right sponsor is really important so take some time to choose. If at any stage this person is not working for you, don't worry, you can always change to someone else. So you’ve completed all 12 EDT lessons with your ADI and completed filler lessons with your sponsor and having held your drivers permit for a minimum of 6 months you can finally apply for your drivers test. After you receive your test date, it is advised that you have some pretest lessons with your ADI. These lessons help you pass the test and give you an idea of the potential route you may be taken on. They really are invaluable lessons. Learning to drive is quite a daunting process but it doesn't have to be with the right school. At the RSA School of Motoring we are here to help you in any stage you are in, whether you are a complete beginner or just need some pointers on how to pass the test. Please feel free to look through our website for more information, some great deals and some real testimonials from our past students. Or us a ring and one of our friendly staff member will be happy to help.

<urn:uuid:92365b0c-e7ad-4bbe-a8b2-b3b8b82b7ffa>

CC-MAIN-2018-13

http://drivinglessonsleinster.ie/edt-what-is-it.html

s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2018-13/segments/1521257647892.89/warc/CC-MAIN-20180322151300-20180322171300-00710.warc.gz

en

<urn:uuid:92365b0c-e7ad-4bbe-a8b2-b3b8b82b7ffa>_38

Picking the right sponsor is really important so take some time to choose.

What is EDT?: The EDT means ‘Essential Driving Training’. The EDT is relatively new and has been a topic of confusion for a lot of people in the past few years. Gone are the easy days that your parents or friends could teach you to drive. It may seem really daunting but believe us when we say that it is not that complicated. We at RSA School of Motoring are here to explain everything to you and give you the information you need to successfully complete your EDT training. Why was the EDT was introduced?: The EDT was introduced by the Government back in 2011 due to stats at the time that clearly showed that inexperienced young drivers were more at risk to themselves and others on the road. The EDT was designed to help young drivers become safer and more competent drivers. Each lesson focuses on each aspect of driving from correct positioning on the road to speed management. On completion of the EDT all new drivers will have the skills required to ensure the road is a safer place for everyone. EDT Lesson breakdown The 12 EDT lessons are set out like this: - Lesson 1: Car Controls and Safety Checks - Lesson 2: Correct Positioning - Lesson 3: Changing Direction - Lesson 4: Progression Management - Lesson 5: Correct Positioning (advanced) - Lesson 6: Anticipation and Reaction - Lesson 7: Sharing the Road - Lesson 8: Driving Safely Through Traffic - Lesson 9: Changing Direction (advanced) - Lesson 10: Speed Management - Lesson 11: Driving Calmly - Lesson 12: Night Driving Lessons 1-8 must be taken in the order shown above. Lessons 9-12 can be taken in any order. In order to complete your EDT taining and be eligible to apply for the driving test, all 12 lessons have to be completed with a filled in logbook as your proof. The logbook is given you when you take your first lesson with your approved driving instructor or ADI. The logbook must be kept safe at all times as it is an important document. Each lesson taken with your ADI will be logged in your logbook and also logged manually on the RSA portal website. Only an approved driving instructor can complete the logbook. There is space for your ADI to write comments after each lesson and pointers can be made on what you may need to work on to improve. This is an invaluable tool when furthering your practice and is also extremely helpful for your selected sponsor. Your sponsor is also encouraged to write in comments after each filler lesson. This way everyone will know what level the student is at. The logbook is used as proof of completion of each lesson of the EDT. What is a sponsor?: A sponsor is someone the learner driver can choose themselves like a parent, Aunt/Uncle or it can even be an approved driving instructor. The chosen sponsor must be an experienced driver and hold a full driver's license for at least 2 years. The role of the sponsor is to take the learner driver out on filler lessons. These filler lessons should be taken after each EDT lesson with your ADI. The purpose of the practice lesson is to practice what you have learnt and see if you have made any progress. Your sponsor should base your filler lessons around what comments your instructor has left in your logbook. This way the learner driver gets the most out of the lesson and focuses on what they need to improve on. If you have been asked to be a sponsor, it may be an advantage to look over the rules of the road ahead of the filler lessons to ensure you are more beneficial to your learner driver. This role should be taken seriously and if you feel you cannot commit your time or energy into it, just say no! At the end of the day if you are not committed to being a sponsor it will only stop the learner driver improving their driving skills and make the whole process longer than needed to be. Choosing a sponsor: A sponsor is someone the learner driver can choose themselves like a parent, Aunt/Uncle or it can even be your ADI. Whoever you choose it is purely your choice. The main thing you must ask yourself is, ‘Can i trust this person?’, ‘Will this person keep me calm or stress me out?’, ‘Will this person make time for me to practice with them?’. If the answer is no to any of these questions, ask someone else. Picking the right sponsor is really important so take some time to choose. If at any stage this person is not working for you, don't worry, you can always change to someone else. So you’ve completed all 12 EDT lessons with your ADI and completed filler lessons with your sponsor and having held your drivers permit for a minimum of 6 months you can finally apply for your drivers test. After you receive your test date, it is advised that you have some pretest lessons with your ADI. These lessons help you pass the test and give you an idea of the potential route you may be taken on. They really are invaluable lessons. Learning to drive is quite a daunting process but it doesn't have to be with the right school. At the RSA School of Motoring we are here to help you in any stage you are in, whether you are a complete beginner or just need some pointers on how to pass the test. Please feel free to look through our website for more information, some great deals and some real testimonials from our past students. Or us a ring and one of our friendly staff member will be happy to help.

<urn:uuid:92365b0c-e7ad-4bbe-a8b2-b3b8b82b7ffa>

CC-MAIN-2018-13

http://drivinglessonsleinster.ie/edt-what-is-it.html

s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2018-13/segments/1521257647892.89/warc/CC-MAIN-20180322151300-20180322171300-00710.warc.gz

en

<urn:uuid:92365b0c-e7ad-4bbe-a8b2-b3b8b82b7ffa>_39

If at any stage this person is not working for you, don't worry, you can always change to someone else.

What is EDT?: The EDT means ‘Essential Driving Training’. The EDT is relatively new and has been a topic of confusion for a lot of people in the past few years. Gone are the easy days that your parents or friends could teach you to drive. It may seem really daunting but believe us when we say that it is not that complicated. We at RSA School of Motoring are here to explain everything to you and give you the information you need to successfully complete your EDT training. Why was the EDT was introduced?: The EDT was introduced by the Government back in 2011 due to stats at the time that clearly showed that inexperienced young drivers were more at risk to themselves and others on the road. The EDT was designed to help young drivers become safer and more competent drivers. Each lesson focuses on each aspect of driving from correct positioning on the road to speed management. On completion of the EDT all new drivers will have the skills required to ensure the road is a safer place for everyone. EDT Lesson breakdown The 12 EDT lessons are set out like this: - Lesson 1: Car Controls and Safety Checks - Lesson 2: Correct Positioning - Lesson 3: Changing Direction - Lesson 4: Progression Management - Lesson 5: Correct Positioning (advanced) - Lesson 6: Anticipation and Reaction - Lesson 7: Sharing the Road - Lesson 8: Driving Safely Through Traffic - Lesson 9: Changing Direction (advanced) - Lesson 10: Speed Management - Lesson 11: Driving Calmly - Lesson 12: Night Driving Lessons 1-8 must be taken in the order shown above. Lessons 9-12 can be taken in any order. In order to complete your EDT taining and be eligible to apply for the driving test, all 12 lessons have to be completed with a filled in logbook as your proof. The logbook is given you when you take your first lesson with your approved driving instructor or ADI. The logbook must be kept safe at all times as it is an important document. Each lesson taken with your ADI will be logged in your logbook and also logged manually on the RSA portal website. Only an approved driving instructor can complete the logbook. There is space for your ADI to write comments after each lesson and pointers can be made on what you may need to work on to improve. This is an invaluable tool when furthering your practice and is also extremely helpful for your selected sponsor. Your sponsor is also encouraged to write in comments after each filler lesson. This way everyone will know what level the student is at. The logbook is used as proof of completion of each lesson of the EDT. What is a sponsor?: A sponsor is someone the learner driver can choose themselves like a parent, Aunt/Uncle or it can even be an approved driving instructor. The chosen sponsor must be an experienced driver and hold a full driver's license for at least 2 years. The role of the sponsor is to take the learner driver out on filler lessons. These filler lessons should be taken after each EDT lesson with your ADI. The purpose of the practice lesson is to practice what you have learnt and see if you have made any progress. Your sponsor should base your filler lessons around what comments your instructor has left in your logbook. This way the learner driver gets the most out of the lesson and focuses on what they need to improve on. If you have been asked to be a sponsor, it may be an advantage to look over the rules of the road ahead of the filler lessons to ensure you are more beneficial to your learner driver. This role should be taken seriously and if you feel you cannot commit your time or energy into it, just say no! At the end of the day if you are not committed to being a sponsor it will only stop the learner driver improving their driving skills and make the whole process longer than needed to be. Choosing a sponsor: A sponsor is someone the learner driver can choose themselves like a parent, Aunt/Uncle or it can even be your ADI. Whoever you choose it is purely your choice. The main thing you must ask yourself is, ‘Can i trust this person?’, ‘Will this person keep me calm or stress me out?’, ‘Will this person make time for me to practice with them?’. If the answer is no to any of these questions, ask someone else. Picking the right sponsor is really important so take some time to choose. If at any stage this person is not working for you, don't worry, you can always change to someone else. So you’ve completed all 12 EDT lessons with your ADI and completed filler lessons with your sponsor and having held your drivers permit for a minimum of 6 months you can finally apply for your drivers test. After you receive your test date, it is advised that you have some pretest lessons with your ADI. These lessons help you pass the test and give you an idea of the potential route you may be taken on. They really are invaluable lessons. Learning to drive is quite a daunting process but it doesn't have to be with the right school. At the RSA School of Motoring we are here to help you in any stage you are in, whether you are a complete beginner or just need some pointers on how to pass the test. Please feel free to look through our website for more information, some great deals and some real testimonials from our past students. Or us a ring and one of our friendly staff member will be happy to help.

<urn:uuid:92365b0c-e7ad-4bbe-a8b2-b3b8b82b7ffa>

CC-MAIN-2018-13

http://drivinglessonsleinster.ie/edt-what-is-it.html

s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2018-13/segments/1521257647892.89/warc/CC-MAIN-20180322151300-20180322171300-00710.warc.gz

en

<urn:uuid:92365b0c-e7ad-4bbe-a8b2-b3b8b82b7ffa>_40

So you’ve completed all 12 EDT lessons with your ADI and completed filler lessons with your sponsor and having held your drivers permit for a minimum of 6 months you can finally apply for your drivers test.

What is EDT?: The EDT means ‘Essential Driving Training’. The EDT is relatively new and has been a topic of confusion for a lot of people in the past few years. Gone are the easy days that your parents or friends could teach you to drive. It may seem really daunting but believe us when we say that it is not that complicated. We at RSA School of Motoring are here to explain everything to you and give you the information you need to successfully complete your EDT training. Why was the EDT was introduced?: The EDT was introduced by the Government back in 2011 due to stats at the time that clearly showed that inexperienced young drivers were more at risk to themselves and others on the road. The EDT was designed to help young drivers become safer and more competent drivers. Each lesson focuses on each aspect of driving from correct positioning on the road to speed management. On completion of the EDT all new drivers will have the skills required to ensure the road is a safer place for everyone. EDT Lesson breakdown The 12 EDT lessons are set out like this: - Lesson 1: Car Controls and Safety Checks - Lesson 2: Correct Positioning - Lesson 3: Changing Direction - Lesson 4: Progression Management - Lesson 5: Correct Positioning (advanced) - Lesson 6: Anticipation and Reaction - Lesson 7: Sharing the Road - Lesson 8: Driving Safely Through Traffic - Lesson 9: Changing Direction (advanced) - Lesson 10: Speed Management - Lesson 11: Driving Calmly - Lesson 12: Night Driving Lessons 1-8 must be taken in the order shown above. Lessons 9-12 can be taken in any order. In order to complete your EDT taining and be eligible to apply for the driving test, all 12 lessons have to be completed with a filled in logbook as your proof. The logbook is given you when you take your first lesson with your approved driving instructor or ADI. The logbook must be kept safe at all times as it is an important document. Each lesson taken with your ADI will be logged in your logbook and also logged manually on the RSA portal website. Only an approved driving instructor can complete the logbook. There is space for your ADI to write comments after each lesson and pointers can be made on what you may need to work on to improve. This is an invaluable tool when furthering your practice and is also extremely helpful for your selected sponsor. Your sponsor is also encouraged to write in comments after each filler lesson. This way everyone will know what level the student is at. The logbook is used as proof of completion of each lesson of the EDT. What is a sponsor?: A sponsor is someone the learner driver can choose themselves like a parent, Aunt/Uncle or it can even be an approved driving instructor. The chosen sponsor must be an experienced driver and hold a full driver's license for at least 2 years. The role of the sponsor is to take the learner driver out on filler lessons. These filler lessons should be taken after each EDT lesson with your ADI. The purpose of the practice lesson is to practice what you have learnt and see if you have made any progress. Your sponsor should base your filler lessons around what comments your instructor has left in your logbook. This way the learner driver gets the most out of the lesson and focuses on what they need to improve on. If you have been asked to be a sponsor, it may be an advantage to look over the rules of the road ahead of the filler lessons to ensure you are more beneficial to your learner driver. This role should be taken seriously and if you feel you cannot commit your time or energy into it, just say no! At the end of the day if you are not committed to being a sponsor it will only stop the learner driver improving their driving skills and make the whole process longer than needed to be. Choosing a sponsor: A sponsor is someone the learner driver can choose themselves like a parent, Aunt/Uncle or it can even be your ADI. Whoever you choose it is purely your choice. The main thing you must ask yourself is, ‘Can i trust this person?’, ‘Will this person keep me calm or stress me out?’, ‘Will this person make time for me to practice with them?’. If the answer is no to any of these questions, ask someone else. Picking the right sponsor is really important so take some time to choose. If at any stage this person is not working for you, don't worry, you can always change to someone else. So you’ve completed all 12 EDT lessons with your ADI and completed filler lessons with your sponsor and having held your drivers permit for a minimum of 6 months you can finally apply for your drivers test. After you receive your test date, it is advised that you have some pretest lessons with your ADI. These lessons help you pass the test and give you an idea of the potential route you may be taken on. They really are invaluable lessons. Learning to drive is quite a daunting process but it doesn't have to be with the right school. At the RSA School of Motoring we are here to help you in any stage you are in, whether you are a complete beginner or just need some pointers on how to pass the test. Please feel free to look through our website for more information, some great deals and some real testimonials from our past students. Or us a ring and one of our friendly staff member will be happy to help.

<urn:uuid:92365b0c-e7ad-4bbe-a8b2-b3b8b82b7ffa>

CC-MAIN-2018-13

http://drivinglessonsleinster.ie/edt-what-is-it.html

s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2018-13/segments/1521257647892.89/warc/CC-MAIN-20180322151300-20180322171300-00710.warc.gz

en

<urn:uuid:92365b0c-e7ad-4bbe-a8b2-b3b8b82b7ffa>_41

After you receive your test date, it is advised that you have some pretest lessons with your ADI.

What is EDT?: The EDT means ‘Essential Driving Training’. The EDT is relatively new and has been a topic of confusion for a lot of people in the past few years. Gone are the easy days that your parents or friends could teach you to drive. It may seem really daunting but believe us when we say that it is not that complicated. We at RSA School of Motoring are here to explain everything to you and give you the information you need to successfully complete your EDT training. Why was the EDT was introduced?: The EDT was introduced by the Government back in 2011 due to stats at the time that clearly showed that inexperienced young drivers were more at risk to themselves and others on the road. The EDT was designed to help young drivers become safer and more competent drivers. Each lesson focuses on each aspect of driving from correct positioning on the road to speed management. On completion of the EDT all new drivers will have the skills required to ensure the road is a safer place for everyone. EDT Lesson breakdown The 12 EDT lessons are set out like this: - Lesson 1: Car Controls and Safety Checks - Lesson 2: Correct Positioning - Lesson 3: Changing Direction - Lesson 4: Progression Management - Lesson 5: Correct Positioning (advanced) - Lesson 6: Anticipation and Reaction - Lesson 7: Sharing the Road - Lesson 8: Driving Safely Through Traffic - Lesson 9: Changing Direction (advanced) - Lesson 10: Speed Management - Lesson 11: Driving Calmly - Lesson 12: Night Driving Lessons 1-8 must be taken in the order shown above. Lessons 9-12 can be taken in any order. In order to complete your EDT taining and be eligible to apply for the driving test, all 12 lessons have to be completed with a filled in logbook as your proof. The logbook is given you when you take your first lesson with your approved driving instructor or ADI. The logbook must be kept safe at all times as it is an important document. Each lesson taken with your ADI will be logged in your logbook and also logged manually on the RSA portal website. Only an approved driving instructor can complete the logbook. There is space for your ADI to write comments after each lesson and pointers can be made on what you may need to work on to improve. This is an invaluable tool when furthering your practice and is also extremely helpful for your selected sponsor. Your sponsor is also encouraged to write in comments after each filler lesson. This way everyone will know what level the student is at. The logbook is used as proof of completion of each lesson of the EDT. What is a sponsor?: A sponsor is someone the learner driver can choose themselves like a parent, Aunt/Uncle or it can even be an approved driving instructor. The chosen sponsor must be an experienced driver and hold a full driver's license for at least 2 years. The role of the sponsor is to take the learner driver out on filler lessons. These filler lessons should be taken after each EDT lesson with your ADI. The purpose of the practice lesson is to practice what you have learnt and see if you have made any progress. Your sponsor should base your filler lessons around what comments your instructor has left in your logbook. This way the learner driver gets the most out of the lesson and focuses on what they need to improve on. If you have been asked to be a sponsor, it may be an advantage to look over the rules of the road ahead of the filler lessons to ensure you are more beneficial to your learner driver. This role should be taken seriously and if you feel you cannot commit your time or energy into it, just say no! At the end of the day if you are not committed to being a sponsor it will only stop the learner driver improving their driving skills and make the whole process longer than needed to be. Choosing a sponsor: A sponsor is someone the learner driver can choose themselves like a parent, Aunt/Uncle or it can even be your ADI. Whoever you choose it is purely your choice. The main thing you must ask yourself is, ‘Can i trust this person?’, ‘Will this person keep me calm or stress me out?’, ‘Will this person make time for me to practice with them?’. If the answer is no to any of these questions, ask someone else. Picking the right sponsor is really important so take some time to choose. If at any stage this person is not working for you, don't worry, you can always change to someone else. So you’ve completed all 12 EDT lessons with your ADI and completed filler lessons with your sponsor and having held your drivers permit for a minimum of 6 months you can finally apply for your drivers test. After you receive your test date, it is advised that you have some pretest lessons with your ADI. These lessons help you pass the test and give you an idea of the potential route you may be taken on. They really are invaluable lessons. Learning to drive is quite a daunting process but it doesn't have to be with the right school. At the RSA School of Motoring we are here to help you in any stage you are in, whether you are a complete beginner or just need some pointers on how to pass the test. Please feel free to look through our website for more information, some great deals and some real testimonials from our past students. Or us a ring and one of our friendly staff member will be happy to help.

<urn:uuid:92365b0c-e7ad-4bbe-a8b2-b3b8b82b7ffa>

CC-MAIN-2018-13

http://drivinglessonsleinster.ie/edt-what-is-it.html

s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2018-13/segments/1521257647892.89/warc/CC-MAIN-20180322151300-20180322171300-00710.warc.gz

en

<urn:uuid:92365b0c-e7ad-4bbe-a8b2-b3b8b82b7ffa>_42

These lessons help you pass the test and give you an idea of the potential route you may be taken on.

What is EDT?: The EDT means ‘Essential Driving Training’. The EDT is relatively new and has been a topic of confusion for a lot of people in the past few years. Gone are the easy days that your parents or friends could teach you to drive. It may seem really daunting but believe us when we say that it is not that complicated. We at RSA School of Motoring are here to explain everything to you and give you the information you need to successfully complete your EDT training. Why was the EDT was introduced?: The EDT was introduced by the Government back in 2011 due to stats at the time that clearly showed that inexperienced young drivers were more at risk to themselves and others on the road. The EDT was designed to help young drivers become safer and more competent drivers. Each lesson focuses on each aspect of driving from correct positioning on the road to speed management. On completion of the EDT all new drivers will have the skills required to ensure the road is a safer place for everyone. EDT Lesson breakdown The 12 EDT lessons are set out like this: - Lesson 1: Car Controls and Safety Checks - Lesson 2: Correct Positioning - Lesson 3: Changing Direction - Lesson 4: Progression Management - Lesson 5: Correct Positioning (advanced) - Lesson 6: Anticipation and Reaction - Lesson 7: Sharing the Road - Lesson 8: Driving Safely Through Traffic - Lesson 9: Changing Direction (advanced) - Lesson 10: Speed Management - Lesson 11: Driving Calmly - Lesson 12: Night Driving Lessons 1-8 must be taken in the order shown above. Lessons 9-12 can be taken in any order. In order to complete your EDT taining and be eligible to apply for the driving test, all 12 lessons have to be completed with a filled in logbook as your proof. The logbook is given you when you take your first lesson with your approved driving instructor or ADI. The logbook must be kept safe at all times as it is an important document. Each lesson taken with your ADI will be logged in your logbook and also logged manually on the RSA portal website. Only an approved driving instructor can complete the logbook. There is space for your ADI to write comments after each lesson and pointers can be made on what you may need to work on to improve. This is an invaluable tool when furthering your practice and is also extremely helpful for your selected sponsor. Your sponsor is also encouraged to write in comments after each filler lesson. This way everyone will know what level the student is at. The logbook is used as proof of completion of each lesson of the EDT. What is a sponsor?: A sponsor is someone the learner driver can choose themselves like a parent, Aunt/Uncle or it can even be an approved driving instructor. The chosen sponsor must be an experienced driver and hold a full driver's license for at least 2 years. The role of the sponsor is to take the learner driver out on filler lessons. These filler lessons should be taken after each EDT lesson with your ADI. The purpose of the practice lesson is to practice what you have learnt and see if you have made any progress. Your sponsor should base your filler lessons around what comments your instructor has left in your logbook. This way the learner driver gets the most out of the lesson and focuses on what they need to improve on. If you have been asked to be a sponsor, it may be an advantage to look over the rules of the road ahead of the filler lessons to ensure you are more beneficial to your learner driver. This role should be taken seriously and if you feel you cannot commit your time or energy into it, just say no! At the end of the day if you are not committed to being a sponsor it will only stop the learner driver improving their driving skills and make the whole process longer than needed to be. Choosing a sponsor: A sponsor is someone the learner driver can choose themselves like a parent, Aunt/Uncle or it can even be your ADI. Whoever you choose it is purely your choice. The main thing you must ask yourself is, ‘Can i trust this person?’, ‘Will this person keep me calm or stress me out?’, ‘Will this person make time for me to practice with them?’. If the answer is no to any of these questions, ask someone else. Picking the right sponsor is really important so take some time to choose. If at any stage this person is not working for you, don't worry, you can always change to someone else. So you’ve completed all 12 EDT lessons with your ADI and completed filler lessons with your sponsor and having held your drivers permit for a minimum of 6 months you can finally apply for your drivers test. After you receive your test date, it is advised that you have some pretest lessons with your ADI. These lessons help you pass the test and give you an idea of the potential route you may be taken on. They really are invaluable lessons. Learning to drive is quite a daunting process but it doesn't have to be with the right school. At the RSA School of Motoring we are here to help you in any stage you are in, whether you are a complete beginner or just need some pointers on how to pass the test. Please feel free to look through our website for more information, some great deals and some real testimonials from our past students. Or us a ring and one of our friendly staff member will be happy to help.

<urn:uuid:92365b0c-e7ad-4bbe-a8b2-b3b8b82b7ffa>

CC-MAIN-2018-13

http://drivinglessonsleinster.ie/edt-what-is-it.html

s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2018-13/segments/1521257647892.89/warc/CC-MAIN-20180322151300-20180322171300-00710.warc.gz

en

<urn:uuid:92365b0c-e7ad-4bbe-a8b2-b3b8b82b7ffa>_44

Learning to drive is quite a daunting process but it doesn't have to be with the right school.

What is EDT?: The EDT means ‘Essential Driving Training’. The EDT is relatively new and has been a topic of confusion for a lot of people in the past few years. Gone are the easy days that your parents or friends could teach you to drive. It may seem really daunting but believe us when we say that it is not that complicated. We at RSA School of Motoring are here to explain everything to you and give you the information you need to successfully complete your EDT training. Why was the EDT was introduced?: The EDT was introduced by the Government back in 2011 due to stats at the time that clearly showed that inexperienced young drivers were more at risk to themselves and others on the road. The EDT was designed to help young drivers become safer and more competent drivers. Each lesson focuses on each aspect of driving from correct positioning on the road to speed management. On completion of the EDT all new drivers will have the skills required to ensure the road is a safer place for everyone. EDT Lesson breakdown The 12 EDT lessons are set out like this: - Lesson 1: Car Controls and Safety Checks - Lesson 2: Correct Positioning - Lesson 3: Changing Direction - Lesson 4: Progression Management - Lesson 5: Correct Positioning (advanced) - Lesson 6: Anticipation and Reaction - Lesson 7: Sharing the Road - Lesson 8: Driving Safely Through Traffic - Lesson 9: Changing Direction (advanced) - Lesson 10: Speed Management - Lesson 11: Driving Calmly - Lesson 12: Night Driving Lessons 1-8 must be taken in the order shown above. Lessons 9-12 can be taken in any order. In order to complete your EDT taining and be eligible to apply for the driving test, all 12 lessons have to be completed with a filled in logbook as your proof. The logbook is given you when you take your first lesson with your approved driving instructor or ADI. The logbook must be kept safe at all times as it is an important document. Each lesson taken with your ADI will be logged in your logbook and also logged manually on the RSA portal website. Only an approved driving instructor can complete the logbook. There is space for your ADI to write comments after each lesson and pointers can be made on what you may need to work on to improve. This is an invaluable tool when furthering your practice and is also extremely helpful for your selected sponsor. Your sponsor is also encouraged to write in comments after each filler lesson. This way everyone will know what level the student is at. The logbook is used as proof of completion of each lesson of the EDT. What is a sponsor?: A sponsor is someone the learner driver can choose themselves like a parent, Aunt/Uncle or it can even be an approved driving instructor. The chosen sponsor must be an experienced driver and hold a full driver's license for at least 2 years. The role of the sponsor is to take the learner driver out on filler lessons. These filler lessons should be taken after each EDT lesson with your ADI. The purpose of the practice lesson is to practice what you have learnt and see if you have made any progress. Your sponsor should base your filler lessons around what comments your instructor has left in your logbook. This way the learner driver gets the most out of the lesson and focuses on what they need to improve on. If you have been asked to be a sponsor, it may be an advantage to look over the rules of the road ahead of the filler lessons to ensure you are more beneficial to your learner driver. This role should be taken seriously and if you feel you cannot commit your time or energy into it, just say no! At the end of the day if you are not committed to being a sponsor it will only stop the learner driver improving their driving skills and make the whole process longer than needed to be. Choosing a sponsor: A sponsor is someone the learner driver can choose themselves like a parent, Aunt/Uncle or it can even be your ADI. Whoever you choose it is purely your choice. The main thing you must ask yourself is, ‘Can i trust this person?’, ‘Will this person keep me calm or stress me out?’, ‘Will this person make time for me to practice with them?’. If the answer is no to any of these questions, ask someone else. Picking the right sponsor is really important so take some time to choose. If at any stage this person is not working for you, don't worry, you can always change to someone else. So you’ve completed all 12 EDT lessons with your ADI and completed filler lessons with your sponsor and having held your drivers permit for a minimum of 6 months you can finally apply for your drivers test. After you receive your test date, it is advised that you have some pretest lessons with your ADI. These lessons help you pass the test and give you an idea of the potential route you may be taken on. They really are invaluable lessons. Learning to drive is quite a daunting process but it doesn't have to be with the right school. At the RSA School of Motoring we are here to help you in any stage you are in, whether you are a complete beginner or just need some pointers on how to pass the test. Please feel free to look through our website for more information, some great deals and some real testimonials from our past students. Or us a ring and one of our friendly staff member will be happy to help.

<urn:uuid:92365b0c-e7ad-4bbe-a8b2-b3b8b82b7ffa>

CC-MAIN-2018-13

http://drivinglessonsleinster.ie/edt-what-is-it.html

s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2018-13/segments/1521257647892.89/warc/CC-MAIN-20180322151300-20180322171300-00710.warc.gz

en

<urn:uuid:92365b0c-e7ad-4bbe-a8b2-b3b8b82b7ffa>_45

At the RSA School of Motoring we are here to help you in any stage you are in, whether you are a complete beginner or just need some pointers on how to pass the test.

What is EDT?: The EDT means ‘Essential Driving Training’. The EDT is relatively new and has been a topic of confusion for a lot of people in the past few years. Gone are the easy days that your parents or friends could teach you to drive. It may seem really daunting but believe us when we say that it is not that complicated. We at RSA School of Motoring are here to explain everything to you and give you the information you need to successfully complete your EDT training. Why was the EDT was introduced?: The EDT was introduced by the Government back in 2011 due to stats at the time that clearly showed that inexperienced young drivers were more at risk to themselves and others on the road. The EDT was designed to help young drivers become safer and more competent drivers. Each lesson focuses on each aspect of driving from correct positioning on the road to speed management. On completion of the EDT all new drivers will have the skills required to ensure the road is a safer place for everyone. EDT Lesson breakdown The 12 EDT lessons are set out like this: - Lesson 1: Car Controls and Safety Checks - Lesson 2: Correct Positioning - Lesson 3: Changing Direction - Lesson 4: Progression Management - Lesson 5: Correct Positioning (advanced) - Lesson 6: Anticipation and Reaction - Lesson 7: Sharing the Road - Lesson 8: Driving Safely Through Traffic - Lesson 9: Changing Direction (advanced) - Lesson 10: Speed Management - Lesson 11: Driving Calmly - Lesson 12: Night Driving Lessons 1-8 must be taken in the order shown above. Lessons 9-12 can be taken in any order. In order to complete your EDT taining and be eligible to apply for the driving test, all 12 lessons have to be completed with a filled in logbook as your proof. The logbook is given you when you take your first lesson with your approved driving instructor or ADI. The logbook must be kept safe at all times as it is an important document. Each lesson taken with your ADI will be logged in your logbook and also logged manually on the RSA portal website. Only an approved driving instructor can complete the logbook. There is space for your ADI to write comments after each lesson and pointers can be made on what you may need to work on to improve. This is an invaluable tool when furthering your practice and is also extremely helpful for your selected sponsor. Your sponsor is also encouraged to write in comments after each filler lesson. This way everyone will know what level the student is at. The logbook is used as proof of completion of each lesson of the EDT. What is a sponsor?: A sponsor is someone the learner driver can choose themselves like a parent, Aunt/Uncle or it can even be an approved driving instructor. The chosen sponsor must be an experienced driver and hold a full driver's license for at least 2 years. The role of the sponsor is to take the learner driver out on filler lessons. These filler lessons should be taken after each EDT lesson with your ADI. The purpose of the practice lesson is to practice what you have learnt and see if you have made any progress. Your sponsor should base your filler lessons around what comments your instructor has left in your logbook. This way the learner driver gets the most out of the lesson and focuses on what they need to improve on. If you have been asked to be a sponsor, it may be an advantage to look over the rules of the road ahead of the filler lessons to ensure you are more beneficial to your learner driver. This role should be taken seriously and if you feel you cannot commit your time or energy into it, just say no! At the end of the day if you are not committed to being a sponsor it will only stop the learner driver improving their driving skills and make the whole process longer than needed to be. Choosing a sponsor: A sponsor is someone the learner driver can choose themselves like a parent, Aunt/Uncle or it can even be your ADI. Whoever you choose it is purely your choice. The main thing you must ask yourself is, ‘Can i trust this person?’, ‘Will this person keep me calm or stress me out?’, ‘Will this person make time for me to practice with them?’. If the answer is no to any of these questions, ask someone else. Picking the right sponsor is really important so take some time to choose. If at any stage this person is not working for you, don't worry, you can always change to someone else. So you’ve completed all 12 EDT lessons with your ADI and completed filler lessons with your sponsor and having held your drivers permit for a minimum of 6 months you can finally apply for your drivers test. After you receive your test date, it is advised that you have some pretest lessons with your ADI. These lessons help you pass the test and give you an idea of the potential route you may be taken on. They really are invaluable lessons. Learning to drive is quite a daunting process but it doesn't have to be with the right school. At the RSA School of Motoring we are here to help you in any stage you are in, whether you are a complete beginner or just need some pointers on how to pass the test. Please feel free to look through our website for more information, some great deals and some real testimonials from our past students. Or us a ring and one of our friendly staff member will be happy to help.

<urn:uuid:92365b0c-e7ad-4bbe-a8b2-b3b8b82b7ffa>

CC-MAIN-2018-13

http://drivinglessonsleinster.ie/edt-what-is-it.html

s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2018-13/segments/1521257647892.89/warc/CC-MAIN-20180322151300-20180322171300-00710.warc.gz

en

<urn:uuid:92365b0c-e7ad-4bbe-a8b2-b3b8b82b7ffa>_46

Please feel free to look through our website for more information, some great deals and some real testimonials from our past students.

What is EDT?: The EDT means ‘Essential Driving Training’. The EDT is relatively new and has been a topic of confusion for a lot of people in the past few years. Gone are the easy days that your parents or friends could teach you to drive. It may seem really daunting but believe us when we say that it is not that complicated. We at RSA School of Motoring are here to explain everything to you and give you the information you need to successfully complete your EDT training. Why was the EDT was introduced?: The EDT was introduced by the Government back in 2011 due to stats at the time that clearly showed that inexperienced young drivers were more at risk to themselves and others on the road. The EDT was designed to help young drivers become safer and more competent drivers. Each lesson focuses on each aspect of driving from correct positioning on the road to speed management. On completion of the EDT all new drivers will have the skills required to ensure the road is a safer place for everyone. EDT Lesson breakdown The 12 EDT lessons are set out like this: - Lesson 1: Car Controls and Safety Checks - Lesson 2: Correct Positioning - Lesson 3: Changing Direction - Lesson 4: Progression Management - Lesson 5: Correct Positioning (advanced) - Lesson 6: Anticipation and Reaction - Lesson 7: Sharing the Road - Lesson 8: Driving Safely Through Traffic - Lesson 9: Changing Direction (advanced) - Lesson 10: Speed Management - Lesson 11: Driving Calmly - Lesson 12: Night Driving Lessons 1-8 must be taken in the order shown above. Lessons 9-12 can be taken in any order. In order to complete your EDT taining and be eligible to apply for the driving test, all 12 lessons have to be completed with a filled in logbook as your proof. The logbook is given you when you take your first lesson with your approved driving instructor or ADI. The logbook must be kept safe at all times as it is an important document. Each lesson taken with your ADI will be logged in your logbook and also logged manually on the RSA portal website. Only an approved driving instructor can complete the logbook. There is space for your ADI to write comments after each lesson and pointers can be made on what you may need to work on to improve. This is an invaluable tool when furthering your practice and is also extremely helpful for your selected sponsor. Your sponsor is also encouraged to write in comments after each filler lesson. This way everyone will know what level the student is at. The logbook is used as proof of completion of each lesson of the EDT. What is a sponsor?: A sponsor is someone the learner driver can choose themselves like a parent, Aunt/Uncle or it can even be an approved driving instructor. The chosen sponsor must be an experienced driver and hold a full driver's license for at least 2 years. The role of the sponsor is to take the learner driver out on filler lessons. These filler lessons should be taken after each EDT lesson with your ADI. The purpose of the practice lesson is to practice what you have learnt and see if you have made any progress. Your sponsor should base your filler lessons around what comments your instructor has left in your logbook. This way the learner driver gets the most out of the lesson and focuses on what they need to improve on. If you have been asked to be a sponsor, it may be an advantage to look over the rules of the road ahead of the filler lessons to ensure you are more beneficial to your learner driver. This role should be taken seriously and if you feel you cannot commit your time or energy into it, just say no! At the end of the day if you are not committed to being a sponsor it will only stop the learner driver improving their driving skills and make the whole process longer than needed to be. Choosing a sponsor: A sponsor is someone the learner driver can choose themselves like a parent, Aunt/Uncle or it can even be your ADI. Whoever you choose it is purely your choice. The main thing you must ask yourself is, ‘Can i trust this person?’, ‘Will this person keep me calm or stress me out?’, ‘Will this person make time for me to practice with them?’. If the answer is no to any of these questions, ask someone else. Picking the right sponsor is really important so take some time to choose. If at any stage this person is not working for you, don't worry, you can always change to someone else. So you’ve completed all 12 EDT lessons with your ADI and completed filler lessons with your sponsor and having held your drivers permit for a minimum of 6 months you can finally apply for your drivers test. After you receive your test date, it is advised that you have some pretest lessons with your ADI. These lessons help you pass the test and give you an idea of the potential route you may be taken on. They really are invaluable lessons. Learning to drive is quite a daunting process but it doesn't have to be with the right school. At the RSA School of Motoring we are here to help you in any stage you are in, whether you are a complete beginner or just need some pointers on how to pass the test. Please feel free to look through our website for more information, some great deals and some real testimonials from our past students. Or us a ring and one of our friendly staff member will be happy to help.

<urn:uuid:92365b0c-e7ad-4bbe-a8b2-b3b8b82b7ffa>

CC-MAIN-2018-13

http://drivinglessonsleinster.ie/edt-what-is-it.html

s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2018-13/segments/1521257647892.89/warc/CC-MAIN-20180322151300-20180322171300-00710.warc.gz

en

<urn:uuid:92365b0c-e7ad-4bbe-a8b2-b3b8b82b7ffa>_47

Or us a ring and one of our friendly staff member will be happy to help.

"Whew! You sure gotta climb a lot of steps to get to the Capitol Building here in Washington. Well I wonder who that sad little scrap of paper is?" And with those words began one of my childhood favorite Schoolhouse Rock videos, which used to be on television back in the early 1970s when I wasn't really old enough to have any idea what exactly they were all about, or why they would sometimes show up in between episodes of Superfriends, Speed Racer, or Sigmund and the Sea Monsters. In I'm just a bill," we witness the progress by which "that sad little scrap of paper" receives a fancy seal and a president's signature and becomes a law ("He signed ya, Bill: Now you're a Law!"). Although the video does an admirable job depicting some of the checks and balances contained in the US Constitution, through which the members of both houses of the legislature must agree to send the bill forward to the executive branch for final approval before any proposed bill is signed into law, it does tend to convey the impression that any "good idea" can be transformed into "a Law" through the magical process of being debated by important-looking men in impressive-looking buildings with lots of steps and Greek columns, on top of high hills (and filled with long rows of impassive US Marines in dress blue uniforms, and statues of distinguished statesmen from previous generations), signed by the president using a fountain pen, and affixed with a shiny-looking seal with a ribbon. Nineteenth-century abolitionist, legal scholar and philosopher Lysander Spooner (1808 - 1887) would vehemently disagree that something becomes "a law" just because it goes through the above process and receives a president's signature and a fancy stamp. In fact, he published a treatise in 1850 entitled A Defence for Fugitive Slaves against the Acts of Congress of February 12, 1793 and September 18, 1850, in which he argued that an illegal law is no law at all, and confers no obligation on anyone to obey it, nor any authority to anyone desiring to enforce it. He begins his treatise with the complete copy of each of the two acts in question, both of which were considered "law" in 1850, compelling men or women who knew of a "fugitive slave" to help catch that "fugitive slave" or face penalties including fines and imprisonment (the term "slave" is put in quotation marks here because Spooner argues that no person can ever own another person, and that there actually is no such thing as a legal slave or the legal condition of slavery, all so-called "laws" which make one person the property of another being illegal and criminal). Those two so-called laws (the Fugitive Slave Act of 1793 and the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850) were both signed by the presidents of their day, George Washington in the first instance and Millard Fillmore in the second (they also bear the signatures of the respective Speakers of the House and Presidents of the Senate). But these signatures do not make them true laws, according to Spooner's arguments. Spooner demonstrates that holding anyone else as property is a crime, and that putting something on paper, stamping it with fancy seals, embellishing it with fancy legal language, and endorsing it with the signatures of people bearing impressive titles does not make it into law: it's still just a "sad little scrap of paper" in his eyes. He even goes so far as to say that men and women have the right to resist illegal laws, in what is undoubtedly among the most important sections of his argument, found on pages 27 and 28. There, he powerfully dismantles the counter-arguments that he anticipates from those who would argue that once something is "a law," it must be obeyed until it is repealed. If it were really true that an illegal or unconstitutional law must be obeyed until repealed, he reasons, then "there would therefore be no difference at all between a constitutional and an unconstitutional law, in respect to their binding force; and that would be equivalent to abolishing the constitution, and giving to the government unlimited power" (28). Those who would disagree with Lysander Spooner on this point are invited to participate in a mental experiment, in which they imagine that the president has signed a law saying that if you in any way hinder the search for an escaped slave, or in any way assist a person who has been designated a "slave" and who has run away and is hiding from the authorities, then you yourself are a criminal and can be subject to enormous fines and imprisonment. Note that this is not just a hypothetical scenario: the first and the thirteenth presidents of the United States each signed such a proposition into "law." Today, nobody reading this blog would likely argue that they would feel a moral duty to obey such a "law," or that they would have to actually support it until such time as they could eventually get it repealed through the same arduous process depicted in the Schoolhouse Rock video shown above. Nearly every man or woman would agree with Spooner that the institution of slavery and "laws" enforcing one person's ability to "own" another are not laws but rather outrageous crimes, and would reject the notion that writing such a "law" down on a piece of paper, stamping it with a pretty seal and adding some flowery signatures suddenly turns it into something that must be willingly and voluntarily obeyed until it can be debated and eventually repealed. Writing something on a piece of paper does not make it a law. But, if this is true, then what does make something a law? Lysander Spooner argued that the actions of men and women cannot actually make anything a law, but that there is already an immutable or unchangeable universal law which he called "Natural Law" or the "Science of Justice." He believed that human society should only enforce natural law, and not dream up additional or "artificial" laws, and that trying to add to or subtract from the natural law is as foolish as trying to add to or subtract from other natural laws, such as the law of gravity. He argued that men and women could voluntarily band together to help ensure compliance with this natural law among their group, but that they could not compel others to join that voluntary association. Even within such a voluntary association, he believed that people or groups could only rightly compel compliance with the natural law, which was generally extremely simple and basically entailed the command to "live honestly, hurt no one, and give everyone his or her due." In an 1882 publication entitled Natural Law; or The Science of Justice, Spooner set out to explain the concept of natural law. In it, he made a distinction between those things that everyone has a legal duty to either do or to refrain from doing, and which others can and must compel in others, and those things which everyone has a moral duty to do but which must be left up to each person's own judgment and which no one has the right or duty to compel. Below is a table based upon Spooner's 1882 text, generally following the order and wording of his argument: The left column (labeled "Legal Duty" and highlighted in yellow), in Spooner's view, constitutes those things which are part of the natural law, and can actually be the only things which anyone can rightfully use force to uphold. He says that everyone has a duty to refrain from injuring others, and that force may and must be used when someone sees someone else in the act of injuring someone else. Spooner further argues in that 1882 text that nearly everyone understands these natural law prohibitions and duties before they are even old enough to know that "three and three are six, or five and five ten" (9). The right column (labeled "Moral Duty" and highlighted in green), in Spooner's view, constitutes those things which we do have a moral duty to perform, but which no one else can compel us to do: we must judge the extent to which we are able to do those things, and how we wish to best accomplish them when we do decide to do them. Thus, in Spooner's view, any so-called law that goes beyond the legal duties in the left column (or, worse yet, directly contradicts and violates those legal duties, as did the Fugitive Slave Acts) is actually no law at all and it can and must be disobeyed as illegal and criminal, regardless of whether it was written down on paper using legal-sounding language and passed by men and women in fancy buildings and stamped with fancy stamps and inscribed with fancy signatures. At this point, the reader may be thinking that all of this is very nice, but what on earth does it have to do with the general subject matter covered in this blog? The answer is: everything. Because, as insightful thinkers such as Mark Passio have articulated, violations of natural law are so contrary to our innate understanding of right and wrong (remember that Spooner says we know it before we even know that 3 + 3 = 6) that artificial laws which violate natural law must always be dressed up with various symbols and word-formulas designed to convey legitimacy, and reinforced by systems of mind control by which men and women who should know that those violations are immoral can somehow be made to believe that those violations of natural law are instead right and good and deserving of support. Institutionalized violations of natural law are nearly always accompanied by powerful forms of illusion, or the creation of "false realities" that enable those violations to appear legitimate, and to get people to go along with them. Therefore, seeing through these false realities is of absolutely primary importance. This blog primarily examines false realities which can be seen operating all around us, including in the realm of conventional history as taught in all the institutions of academia and reinforced by the organs of the conventional media (see for example "Piercing the fog of deception that hides the contours of history" and also the two short videos entitled "The importance of challenging false narratives"). These false realities or false narratives which cause people to accept gross violations of natural law are operating today with just as much force as they were operating in Spooner's day -- perhaps even more so. False narratives assist in getting people to accept the premise that so-called "laws" permitting government surveillance of individual men and women at virtually any time and place are legitimate (see here and here). This is a violation of natural law in that it enables hidden enforcers and observers to treat individuals as criminals on the suspicion that they might do something to harm others, elevating some to the status of "prison guards" and demoting everyone else to the status of prisoners under constant suspicion and surveillance. False narratives convince people to accept the idea that men and women can and should be locked up and denied their freedom for possessing certain plants or mushrooms known to induce a state of ecstasy. This is a violation of natural law in that it uses force to prohibit behavior that in no way harms the person or property of another or infringes on another's rights. False narratives convince people to accept the idea that men and women representing the government and wearing military gear and driving military vehicles can point military weapons at people assembling in the streets to express themselves, or at people in their homes in a neighborhood where fugitives are supposedly hiding. These are clear violations of natural law in that such actions basically declare that force can be used against citizens whenever it is convenient for the government to say there is a need to do so, an idea which Spooner eloquently demolishes in pages 27 and 28 of his text against the Fugitive Slave Acts. In a passage labeled "Section IV" of his 1882 treatise on Natural Law, Spooner declares that the rights belonging to every human being by the unchangeable principle of justice "necessarily remain with him [or her] during life," and although these rights are "capable of being trampled upon" they are nevertheless "incapable of being blotted out, extinguished, annihilated, or separated from" each and every human being, and that there is no authority high enough to simply declare them null or void. False narratives have even apparently convinced some people that it is somehow excusable to cover up evidence of the potentially harmful effects of vaccines on certain children in order to support "herd immunity." All of the above examples, along with the many other violations of natural law currently taking place, are enabled and excused by a variety of false realities or false narratives, created and maintained in order to lend an air of legitimacy to these violations. So were many other horrendous violations of natural law which were enabled by false narratives and illusions throughout history, including the enslavement of Africans which Spooner argued against in the 1850s, to the destruction of Native American tribes in the western US after the end of the US Civil War and the seizure of their lands and their confinement to reservations or "agencies," to the seizure of the Hawaiian Islands and the Philippines in the years after that, and on and on right up to the present. All of the above examples were enabled by lies, illusions, and false narratives or false realities. For more on breaking through illusions and false realities, and creating new realities, see for example this previous post entitled "Jon Rappoport's talk on the trickster-god and creating reality." It is one of Lysander Spooner's singular contributions that he perceived and forcefully argued that a criminal "law" is no law at all, and that men and women have the right and the duty to treat it as such, and to inform others of their right to do the same. Putting something on paper doesn't make it a "law" -- even if it has been adorned with all the necessary stamps and signatures. As Spooner alludes in the writings linked above, the US Constitution as originally designed, and especially the Bill of Rights as originally conceived, were designed to safeguard natural-law rights in many ways, and to the extent that Schoolhouse Rock taught those principles to a new generation in the 1970s, it can be commended. Perhaps Spooner's arguments about an illegal law being no law at all could not really be expected to be squeezed into the "I'm Just a Bill" song. But Lysander Spooner's arguments deserve to be brought into the modern era, in much the same way that the creators of Schoolhouse Rock tried to speak to the younger generation of the 1970s using the language and imagery of the 1970s. Spooner's arguments on behalf of the individual's rights under natural law -- rights which could never be abridged by any authority -- and his arguments against the creation of arbitrary "laws" which everyone has to obey just because a legislature or a president gave them the title of a "law" deserve examination, consideration, and thoughtful debate today more than ever. And the false narratives supporting so-called laws which supposedly authorize some people to use violence against others, or to threaten violence against others, or to take away the freedom of others when those others have not done anything to harm anyone else's persons or property, must be shown to be the form of mind control that they are. No individuals or groups can give themselves the right to violate natural law and in doing so to infringe on anyone else's rights, simply by writing something down on a "sad little scrap of paper."

<urn:uuid:17474726-e53e-48c9-a980-028439f26526>

CC-MAIN-2018-13

http://www.starmythworld.com/mathisencorollary/2014/09/does-writing-something-on-piece-of.html

s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2018-13/segments/1521257647892.89/warc/CC-MAIN-20180322151300-20180322171300-00710.warc.gz

en

<urn:uuid:17474726-e53e-48c9-a980-028439f26526>_1

You sure gotta climb a lot of steps to get to the Capitol Building here in Washington.

"Whew! You sure gotta climb a lot of steps to get to the Capitol Building here in Washington. Well I wonder who that sad little scrap of paper is?" And with those words began one of my childhood favorite Schoolhouse Rock videos, which used to be on television back in the early 1970s when I wasn't really old enough to have any idea what exactly they were all about, or why they would sometimes show up in between episodes of Superfriends, Speed Racer, or Sigmund and the Sea Monsters. In I'm just a bill," we witness the progress by which "that sad little scrap of paper" receives a fancy seal and a president's signature and becomes a law ("He signed ya, Bill: Now you're a Law!"). Although the video does an admirable job depicting some of the checks and balances contained in the US Constitution, through which the members of both houses of the legislature must agree to send the bill forward to the executive branch for final approval before any proposed bill is signed into law, it does tend to convey the impression that any "good idea" can be transformed into "a Law" through the magical process of being debated by important-looking men in impressive-looking buildings with lots of steps and Greek columns, on top of high hills (and filled with long rows of impassive US Marines in dress blue uniforms, and statues of distinguished statesmen from previous generations), signed by the president using a fountain pen, and affixed with a shiny-looking seal with a ribbon. Nineteenth-century abolitionist, legal scholar and philosopher Lysander Spooner (1808 - 1887) would vehemently disagree that something becomes "a law" just because it goes through the above process and receives a president's signature and a fancy stamp. In fact, he published a treatise in 1850 entitled A Defence for Fugitive Slaves against the Acts of Congress of February 12, 1793 and September 18, 1850, in which he argued that an illegal law is no law at all, and confers no obligation on anyone to obey it, nor any authority to anyone desiring to enforce it. He begins his treatise with the complete copy of each of the two acts in question, both of which were considered "law" in 1850, compelling men or women who knew of a "fugitive slave" to help catch that "fugitive slave" or face penalties including fines and imprisonment (the term "slave" is put in quotation marks here because Spooner argues that no person can ever own another person, and that there actually is no such thing as a legal slave or the legal condition of slavery, all so-called "laws" which make one person the property of another being illegal and criminal). Those two so-called laws (the Fugitive Slave Act of 1793 and the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850) were both signed by the presidents of their day, George Washington in the first instance and Millard Fillmore in the second (they also bear the signatures of the respective Speakers of the House and Presidents of the Senate). But these signatures do not make them true laws, according to Spooner's arguments. Spooner demonstrates that holding anyone else as property is a crime, and that putting something on paper, stamping it with fancy seals, embellishing it with fancy legal language, and endorsing it with the signatures of people bearing impressive titles does not make it into law: it's still just a "sad little scrap of paper" in his eyes. He even goes so far as to say that men and women have the right to resist illegal laws, in what is undoubtedly among the most important sections of his argument, found on pages 27 and 28. There, he powerfully dismantles the counter-arguments that he anticipates from those who would argue that once something is "a law," it must be obeyed until it is repealed. If it were really true that an illegal or unconstitutional law must be obeyed until repealed, he reasons, then "there would therefore be no difference at all between a constitutional and an unconstitutional law, in respect to their binding force; and that would be equivalent to abolishing the constitution, and giving to the government unlimited power" (28). Those who would disagree with Lysander Spooner on this point are invited to participate in a mental experiment, in which they imagine that the president has signed a law saying that if you in any way hinder the search for an escaped slave, or in any way assist a person who has been designated a "slave" and who has run away and is hiding from the authorities, then you yourself are a criminal and can be subject to enormous fines and imprisonment. Note that this is not just a hypothetical scenario: the first and the thirteenth presidents of the United States each signed such a proposition into "law." Today, nobody reading this blog would likely argue that they would feel a moral duty to obey such a "law," or that they would have to actually support it until such time as they could eventually get it repealed through the same arduous process depicted in the Schoolhouse Rock video shown above. Nearly every man or woman would agree with Spooner that the institution of slavery and "laws" enforcing one person's ability to "own" another are not laws but rather outrageous crimes, and would reject the notion that writing such a "law" down on a piece of paper, stamping it with a pretty seal and adding some flowery signatures suddenly turns it into something that must be willingly and voluntarily obeyed until it can be debated and eventually repealed. Writing something on a piece of paper does not make it a law. But, if this is true, then what does make something a law? Lysander Spooner argued that the actions of men and women cannot actually make anything a law, but that there is already an immutable or unchangeable universal law which he called "Natural Law" or the "Science of Justice." He believed that human society should only enforce natural law, and not dream up additional or "artificial" laws, and that trying to add to or subtract from the natural law is as foolish as trying to add to or subtract from other natural laws, such as the law of gravity. He argued that men and women could voluntarily band together to help ensure compliance with this natural law among their group, but that they could not compel others to join that voluntary association. Even within such a voluntary association, he believed that people or groups could only rightly compel compliance with the natural law, which was generally extremely simple and basically entailed the command to "live honestly, hurt no one, and give everyone his or her due." In an 1882 publication entitled Natural Law; or The Science of Justice, Spooner set out to explain the concept of natural law. In it, he made a distinction between those things that everyone has a legal duty to either do or to refrain from doing, and which others can and must compel in others, and those things which everyone has a moral duty to do but which must be left up to each person's own judgment and which no one has the right or duty to compel. Below is a table based upon Spooner's 1882 text, generally following the order and wording of his argument: The left column (labeled "Legal Duty" and highlighted in yellow), in Spooner's view, constitutes those things which are part of the natural law, and can actually be the only things which anyone can rightfully use force to uphold. He says that everyone has a duty to refrain from injuring others, and that force may and must be used when someone sees someone else in the act of injuring someone else. Spooner further argues in that 1882 text that nearly everyone understands these natural law prohibitions and duties before they are even old enough to know that "three and three are six, or five and five ten" (9). The right column (labeled "Moral Duty" and highlighted in green), in Spooner's view, constitutes those things which we do have a moral duty to perform, but which no one else can compel us to do: we must judge the extent to which we are able to do those things, and how we wish to best accomplish them when we do decide to do them. Thus, in Spooner's view, any so-called law that goes beyond the legal duties in the left column (or, worse yet, directly contradicts and violates those legal duties, as did the Fugitive Slave Acts) is actually no law at all and it can and must be disobeyed as illegal and criminal, regardless of whether it was written down on paper using legal-sounding language and passed by men and women in fancy buildings and stamped with fancy stamps and inscribed with fancy signatures. At this point, the reader may be thinking that all of this is very nice, but what on earth does it have to do with the general subject matter covered in this blog? The answer is: everything. Because, as insightful thinkers such as Mark Passio have articulated, violations of natural law are so contrary to our innate understanding of right and wrong (remember that Spooner says we know it before we even know that 3 + 3 = 6) that artificial laws which violate natural law must always be dressed up with various symbols and word-formulas designed to convey legitimacy, and reinforced by systems of mind control by which men and women who should know that those violations are immoral can somehow be made to believe that those violations of natural law are instead right and good and deserving of support. Institutionalized violations of natural law are nearly always accompanied by powerful forms of illusion, or the creation of "false realities" that enable those violations to appear legitimate, and to get people to go along with them. Therefore, seeing through these false realities is of absolutely primary importance. This blog primarily examines false realities which can be seen operating all around us, including in the realm of conventional history as taught in all the institutions of academia and reinforced by the organs of the conventional media (see for example "Piercing the fog of deception that hides the contours of history" and also the two short videos entitled "The importance of challenging false narratives"). These false realities or false narratives which cause people to accept gross violations of natural law are operating today with just as much force as they were operating in Spooner's day -- perhaps even more so. False narratives assist in getting people to accept the premise that so-called "laws" permitting government surveillance of individual men and women at virtually any time and place are legitimate (see here and here). This is a violation of natural law in that it enables hidden enforcers and observers to treat individuals as criminals on the suspicion that they might do something to harm others, elevating some to the status of "prison guards" and demoting everyone else to the status of prisoners under constant suspicion and surveillance. False narratives convince people to accept the idea that men and women can and should be locked up and denied their freedom for possessing certain plants or mushrooms known to induce a state of ecstasy. This is a violation of natural law in that it uses force to prohibit behavior that in no way harms the person or property of another or infringes on another's rights. False narratives convince people to accept the idea that men and women representing the government and wearing military gear and driving military vehicles can point military weapons at people assembling in the streets to express themselves, or at people in their homes in a neighborhood where fugitives are supposedly hiding. These are clear violations of natural law in that such actions basically declare that force can be used against citizens whenever it is convenient for the government to say there is a need to do so, an idea which Spooner eloquently demolishes in pages 27 and 28 of his text against the Fugitive Slave Acts. In a passage labeled "Section IV" of his 1882 treatise on Natural Law, Spooner declares that the rights belonging to every human being by the unchangeable principle of justice "necessarily remain with him [or her] during life," and although these rights are "capable of being trampled upon" they are nevertheless "incapable of being blotted out, extinguished, annihilated, or separated from" each and every human being, and that there is no authority high enough to simply declare them null or void. False narratives have even apparently convinced some people that it is somehow excusable to cover up evidence of the potentially harmful effects of vaccines on certain children in order to support "herd immunity." All of the above examples, along with the many other violations of natural law currently taking place, are enabled and excused by a variety of false realities or false narratives, created and maintained in order to lend an air of legitimacy to these violations. So were many other horrendous violations of natural law which were enabled by false narratives and illusions throughout history, including the enslavement of Africans which Spooner argued against in the 1850s, to the destruction of Native American tribes in the western US after the end of the US Civil War and the seizure of their lands and their confinement to reservations or "agencies," to the seizure of the Hawaiian Islands and the Philippines in the years after that, and on and on right up to the present. All of the above examples were enabled by lies, illusions, and false narratives or false realities. For more on breaking through illusions and false realities, and creating new realities, see for example this previous post entitled "Jon Rappoport's talk on the trickster-god and creating reality." It is one of Lysander Spooner's singular contributions that he perceived and forcefully argued that a criminal "law" is no law at all, and that men and women have the right and the duty to treat it as such, and to inform others of their right to do the same. Putting something on paper doesn't make it a "law" -- even if it has been adorned with all the necessary stamps and signatures. As Spooner alludes in the writings linked above, the US Constitution as originally designed, and especially the Bill of Rights as originally conceived, were designed to safeguard natural-law rights in many ways, and to the extent that Schoolhouse Rock taught those principles to a new generation in the 1970s, it can be commended. Perhaps Spooner's arguments about an illegal law being no law at all could not really be expected to be squeezed into the "I'm Just a Bill" song. But Lysander Spooner's arguments deserve to be brought into the modern era, in much the same way that the creators of Schoolhouse Rock tried to speak to the younger generation of the 1970s using the language and imagery of the 1970s. Spooner's arguments on behalf of the individual's rights under natural law -- rights which could never be abridged by any authority -- and his arguments against the creation of arbitrary "laws" which everyone has to obey just because a legislature or a president gave them the title of a "law" deserve examination, consideration, and thoughtful debate today more than ever. And the false narratives supporting so-called laws which supposedly authorize some people to use violence against others, or to threaten violence against others, or to take away the freedom of others when those others have not done anything to harm anyone else's persons or property, must be shown to be the form of mind control that they are. No individuals or groups can give themselves the right to violate natural law and in doing so to infringe on anyone else's rights, simply by writing something down on a "sad little scrap of paper."

<urn:uuid:17474726-e53e-48c9-a980-028439f26526>

CC-MAIN-2018-13

http://www.starmythworld.com/mathisencorollary/2014/09/does-writing-something-on-piece-of.html

s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2018-13/segments/1521257647892.89/warc/CC-MAIN-20180322151300-20180322171300-00710.warc.gz

en

<urn:uuid:17474726-e53e-48c9-a980-028439f26526>_2

Well I wonder who that sad little scrap of paper is?"

"Whew! You sure gotta climb a lot of steps to get to the Capitol Building here in Washington. Well I wonder who that sad little scrap of paper is?" And with those words began one of my childhood favorite Schoolhouse Rock videos, which used to be on television back in the early 1970s when I wasn't really old enough to have any idea what exactly they were all about, or why they would sometimes show up in between episodes of Superfriends, Speed Racer, or Sigmund and the Sea Monsters. In I'm just a bill," we witness the progress by which "that sad little scrap of paper" receives a fancy seal and a president's signature and becomes a law ("He signed ya, Bill: Now you're a Law!"). Although the video does an admirable job depicting some of the checks and balances contained in the US Constitution, through which the members of both houses of the legislature must agree to send the bill forward to the executive branch for final approval before any proposed bill is signed into law, it does tend to convey the impression that any "good idea" can be transformed into "a Law" through the magical process of being debated by important-looking men in impressive-looking buildings with lots of steps and Greek columns, on top of high hills (and filled with long rows of impassive US Marines in dress blue uniforms, and statues of distinguished statesmen from previous generations), signed by the president using a fountain pen, and affixed with a shiny-looking seal with a ribbon. Nineteenth-century abolitionist, legal scholar and philosopher Lysander Spooner (1808 - 1887) would vehemently disagree that something becomes "a law" just because it goes through the above process and receives a president's signature and a fancy stamp. In fact, he published a treatise in 1850 entitled A Defence for Fugitive Slaves against the Acts of Congress of February 12, 1793 and September 18, 1850, in which he argued that an illegal law is no law at all, and confers no obligation on anyone to obey it, nor any authority to anyone desiring to enforce it. He begins his treatise with the complete copy of each of the two acts in question, both of which were considered "law" in 1850, compelling men or women who knew of a "fugitive slave" to help catch that "fugitive slave" or face penalties including fines and imprisonment (the term "slave" is put in quotation marks here because Spooner argues that no person can ever own another person, and that there actually is no such thing as a legal slave or the legal condition of slavery, all so-called "laws" which make one person the property of another being illegal and criminal). Those two so-called laws (the Fugitive Slave Act of 1793 and the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850) were both signed by the presidents of their day, George Washington in the first instance and Millard Fillmore in the second (they also bear the signatures of the respective Speakers of the House and Presidents of the Senate). But these signatures do not make them true laws, according to Spooner's arguments. Spooner demonstrates that holding anyone else as property is a crime, and that putting something on paper, stamping it with fancy seals, embellishing it with fancy legal language, and endorsing it with the signatures of people bearing impressive titles does not make it into law: it's still just a "sad little scrap of paper" in his eyes. He even goes so far as to say that men and women have the right to resist illegal laws, in what is undoubtedly among the most important sections of his argument, found on pages 27 and 28. There, he powerfully dismantles the counter-arguments that he anticipates from those who would argue that once something is "a law," it must be obeyed until it is repealed. If it were really true that an illegal or unconstitutional law must be obeyed until repealed, he reasons, then "there would therefore be no difference at all between a constitutional and an unconstitutional law, in respect to their binding force; and that would be equivalent to abolishing the constitution, and giving to the government unlimited power" (28). Those who would disagree with Lysander Spooner on this point are invited to participate in a mental experiment, in which they imagine that the president has signed a law saying that if you in any way hinder the search for an escaped slave, or in any way assist a person who has been designated a "slave" and who has run away and is hiding from the authorities, then you yourself are a criminal and can be subject to enormous fines and imprisonment. Note that this is not just a hypothetical scenario: the first and the thirteenth presidents of the United States each signed such a proposition into "law." Today, nobody reading this blog would likely argue that they would feel a moral duty to obey such a "law," or that they would have to actually support it until such time as they could eventually get it repealed through the same arduous process depicted in the Schoolhouse Rock video shown above. Nearly every man or woman would agree with Spooner that the institution of slavery and "laws" enforcing one person's ability to "own" another are not laws but rather outrageous crimes, and would reject the notion that writing such a "law" down on a piece of paper, stamping it with a pretty seal and adding some flowery signatures suddenly turns it into something that must be willingly and voluntarily obeyed until it can be debated and eventually repealed. Writing something on a piece of paper does not make it a law. But, if this is true, then what does make something a law? Lysander Spooner argued that the actions of men and women cannot actually make anything a law, but that there is already an immutable or unchangeable universal law which he called "Natural Law" or the "Science of Justice." He believed that human society should only enforce natural law, and not dream up additional or "artificial" laws, and that trying to add to or subtract from the natural law is as foolish as trying to add to or subtract from other natural laws, such as the law of gravity. He argued that men and women could voluntarily band together to help ensure compliance with this natural law among their group, but that they could not compel others to join that voluntary association. Even within such a voluntary association, he believed that people or groups could only rightly compel compliance with the natural law, which was generally extremely simple and basically entailed the command to "live honestly, hurt no one, and give everyone his or her due." In an 1882 publication entitled Natural Law; or The Science of Justice, Spooner set out to explain the concept of natural law. In it, he made a distinction between those things that everyone has a legal duty to either do or to refrain from doing, and which others can and must compel in others, and those things which everyone has a moral duty to do but which must be left up to each person's own judgment and which no one has the right or duty to compel. Below is a table based upon Spooner's 1882 text, generally following the order and wording of his argument: The left column (labeled "Legal Duty" and highlighted in yellow), in Spooner's view, constitutes those things which are part of the natural law, and can actually be the only things which anyone can rightfully use force to uphold. He says that everyone has a duty to refrain from injuring others, and that force may and must be used when someone sees someone else in the act of injuring someone else. Spooner further argues in that 1882 text that nearly everyone understands these natural law prohibitions and duties before they are even old enough to know that "three and three are six, or five and five ten" (9). The right column (labeled "Moral Duty" and highlighted in green), in Spooner's view, constitutes those things which we do have a moral duty to perform, but which no one else can compel us to do: we must judge the extent to which we are able to do those things, and how we wish to best accomplish them when we do decide to do them. Thus, in Spooner's view, any so-called law that goes beyond the legal duties in the left column (or, worse yet, directly contradicts and violates those legal duties, as did the Fugitive Slave Acts) is actually no law at all and it can and must be disobeyed as illegal and criminal, regardless of whether it was written down on paper using legal-sounding language and passed by men and women in fancy buildings and stamped with fancy stamps and inscribed with fancy signatures. At this point, the reader may be thinking that all of this is very nice, but what on earth does it have to do with the general subject matter covered in this blog? The answer is: everything. Because, as insightful thinkers such as Mark Passio have articulated, violations of natural law are so contrary to our innate understanding of right and wrong (remember that Spooner says we know it before we even know that 3 + 3 = 6) that artificial laws which violate natural law must always be dressed up with various symbols and word-formulas designed to convey legitimacy, and reinforced by systems of mind control by which men and women who should know that those violations are immoral can somehow be made to believe that those violations of natural law are instead right and good and deserving of support. Institutionalized violations of natural law are nearly always accompanied by powerful forms of illusion, or the creation of "false realities" that enable those violations to appear legitimate, and to get people to go along with them. Therefore, seeing through these false realities is of absolutely primary importance. This blog primarily examines false realities which can be seen operating all around us, including in the realm of conventional history as taught in all the institutions of academia and reinforced by the organs of the conventional media (see for example "Piercing the fog of deception that hides the contours of history" and also the two short videos entitled "The importance of challenging false narratives"). These false realities or false narratives which cause people to accept gross violations of natural law are operating today with just as much force as they were operating in Spooner's day -- perhaps even more so. False narratives assist in getting people to accept the premise that so-called "laws" permitting government surveillance of individual men and women at virtually any time and place are legitimate (see here and here). This is a violation of natural law in that it enables hidden enforcers and observers to treat individuals as criminals on the suspicion that they might do something to harm others, elevating some to the status of "prison guards" and demoting everyone else to the status of prisoners under constant suspicion and surveillance. False narratives convince people to accept the idea that men and women can and should be locked up and denied their freedom for possessing certain plants or mushrooms known to induce a state of ecstasy. This is a violation of natural law in that it uses force to prohibit behavior that in no way harms the person or property of another or infringes on another's rights. False narratives convince people to accept the idea that men and women representing the government and wearing military gear and driving military vehicles can point military weapons at people assembling in the streets to express themselves, or at people in their homes in a neighborhood where fugitives are supposedly hiding. These are clear violations of natural law in that such actions basically declare that force can be used against citizens whenever it is convenient for the government to say there is a need to do so, an idea which Spooner eloquently demolishes in pages 27 and 28 of his text against the Fugitive Slave Acts. In a passage labeled "Section IV" of his 1882 treatise on Natural Law, Spooner declares that the rights belonging to every human being by the unchangeable principle of justice "necessarily remain with him [or her] during life," and although these rights are "capable of being trampled upon" they are nevertheless "incapable of being blotted out, extinguished, annihilated, or separated from" each and every human being, and that there is no authority high enough to simply declare them null or void. False narratives have even apparently convinced some people that it is somehow excusable to cover up evidence of the potentially harmful effects of vaccines on certain children in order to support "herd immunity." All of the above examples, along with the many other violations of natural law currently taking place, are enabled and excused by a variety of false realities or false narratives, created and maintained in order to lend an air of legitimacy to these violations. So were many other horrendous violations of natural law which were enabled by false narratives and illusions throughout history, including the enslavement of Africans which Spooner argued against in the 1850s, to the destruction of Native American tribes in the western US after the end of the US Civil War and the seizure of their lands and their confinement to reservations or "agencies," to the seizure of the Hawaiian Islands and the Philippines in the years after that, and on and on right up to the present. All of the above examples were enabled by lies, illusions, and false narratives or false realities. For more on breaking through illusions and false realities, and creating new realities, see for example this previous post entitled "Jon Rappoport's talk on the trickster-god and creating reality." It is one of Lysander Spooner's singular contributions that he perceived and forcefully argued that a criminal "law" is no law at all, and that men and women have the right and the duty to treat it as such, and to inform others of their right to do the same. Putting something on paper doesn't make it a "law" -- even if it has been adorned with all the necessary stamps and signatures. As Spooner alludes in the writings linked above, the US Constitution as originally designed, and especially the Bill of Rights as originally conceived, were designed to safeguard natural-law rights in many ways, and to the extent that Schoolhouse Rock taught those principles to a new generation in the 1970s, it can be commended. Perhaps Spooner's arguments about an illegal law being no law at all could not really be expected to be squeezed into the "I'm Just a Bill" song. But Lysander Spooner's arguments deserve to be brought into the modern era, in much the same way that the creators of Schoolhouse Rock tried to speak to the younger generation of the 1970s using the language and imagery of the 1970s. Spooner's arguments on behalf of the individual's rights under natural law -- rights which could never be abridged by any authority -- and his arguments against the creation of arbitrary "laws" which everyone has to obey just because a legislature or a president gave them the title of a "law" deserve examination, consideration, and thoughtful debate today more than ever. And the false narratives supporting so-called laws which supposedly authorize some people to use violence against others, or to threaten violence against others, or to take away the freedom of others when those others have not done anything to harm anyone else's persons or property, must be shown to be the form of mind control that they are. No individuals or groups can give themselves the right to violate natural law and in doing so to infringe on anyone else's rights, simply by writing something down on a "sad little scrap of paper."

<urn:uuid:17474726-e53e-48c9-a980-028439f26526>

CC-MAIN-2018-13

http://www.starmythworld.com/mathisencorollary/2014/09/does-writing-something-on-piece-of.html

s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2018-13/segments/1521257647892.89/warc/CC-MAIN-20180322151300-20180322171300-00710.warc.gz

en

<urn:uuid:17474726-e53e-48c9-a980-028439f26526>_3

And with those words began one of my childhood favorite Schoolhouse Rock videos, which used to be on television back in the early 1970s when I wasn't really old enough to have any idea what exactly they were all about, or why they would sometimes show up in between episodes of Superfriends, Speed Racer, or Sigmund and the Sea Monsters.

"Whew! You sure gotta climb a lot of steps to get to the Capitol Building here in Washington. Well I wonder who that sad little scrap of paper is?" And with those words began one of my childhood favorite Schoolhouse Rock videos, which used to be on television back in the early 1970s when I wasn't really old enough to have any idea what exactly they were all about, or why they would sometimes show up in between episodes of Superfriends, Speed Racer, or Sigmund and the Sea Monsters. In I'm just a bill," we witness the progress by which "that sad little scrap of paper" receives a fancy seal and a president's signature and becomes a law ("He signed ya, Bill: Now you're a Law!"). Although the video does an admirable job depicting some of the checks and balances contained in the US Constitution, through which the members of both houses of the legislature must agree to send the bill forward to the executive branch for final approval before any proposed bill is signed into law, it does tend to convey the impression that any "good idea" can be transformed into "a Law" through the magical process of being debated by important-looking men in impressive-looking buildings with lots of steps and Greek columns, on top of high hills (and filled with long rows of impassive US Marines in dress blue uniforms, and statues of distinguished statesmen from previous generations), signed by the president using a fountain pen, and affixed with a shiny-looking seal with a ribbon. Nineteenth-century abolitionist, legal scholar and philosopher Lysander Spooner (1808 - 1887) would vehemently disagree that something becomes "a law" just because it goes through the above process and receives a president's signature and a fancy stamp. In fact, he published a treatise in 1850 entitled A Defence for Fugitive Slaves against the Acts of Congress of February 12, 1793 and September 18, 1850, in which he argued that an illegal law is no law at all, and confers no obligation on anyone to obey it, nor any authority to anyone desiring to enforce it. He begins his treatise with the complete copy of each of the two acts in question, both of which were considered "law" in 1850, compelling men or women who knew of a "fugitive slave" to help catch that "fugitive slave" or face penalties including fines and imprisonment (the term "slave" is put in quotation marks here because Spooner argues that no person can ever own another person, and that there actually is no such thing as a legal slave or the legal condition of slavery, all so-called "laws" which make one person the property of another being illegal and criminal). Those two so-called laws (the Fugitive Slave Act of 1793 and the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850) were both signed by the presidents of their day, George Washington in the first instance and Millard Fillmore in the second (they also bear the signatures of the respective Speakers of the House and Presidents of the Senate). But these signatures do not make them true laws, according to Spooner's arguments. Spooner demonstrates that holding anyone else as property is a crime, and that putting something on paper, stamping it with fancy seals, embellishing it with fancy legal language, and endorsing it with the signatures of people bearing impressive titles does not make it into law: it's still just a "sad little scrap of paper" in his eyes. He even goes so far as to say that men and women have the right to resist illegal laws, in what is undoubtedly among the most important sections of his argument, found on pages 27 and 28. There, he powerfully dismantles the counter-arguments that he anticipates from those who would argue that once something is "a law," it must be obeyed until it is repealed. If it were really true that an illegal or unconstitutional law must be obeyed until repealed, he reasons, then "there would therefore be no difference at all between a constitutional and an unconstitutional law, in respect to their binding force; and that would be equivalent to abolishing the constitution, and giving to the government unlimited power" (28). Those who would disagree with Lysander Spooner on this point are invited to participate in a mental experiment, in which they imagine that the president has signed a law saying that if you in any way hinder the search for an escaped slave, or in any way assist a person who has been designated a "slave" and who has run away and is hiding from the authorities, then you yourself are a criminal and can be subject to enormous fines and imprisonment. Note that this is not just a hypothetical scenario: the first and the thirteenth presidents of the United States each signed such a proposition into "law." Today, nobody reading this blog would likely argue that they would feel a moral duty to obey such a "law," or that they would have to actually support it until such time as they could eventually get it repealed through the same arduous process depicted in the Schoolhouse Rock video shown above. Nearly every man or woman would agree with Spooner that the institution of slavery and "laws" enforcing one person's ability to "own" another are not laws but rather outrageous crimes, and would reject the notion that writing such a "law" down on a piece of paper, stamping it with a pretty seal and adding some flowery signatures suddenly turns it into something that must be willingly and voluntarily obeyed until it can be debated and eventually repealed. Writing something on a piece of paper does not make it a law. But, if this is true, then what does make something a law? Lysander Spooner argued that the actions of men and women cannot actually make anything a law, but that there is already an immutable or unchangeable universal law which he called "Natural Law" or the "Science of Justice." He believed that human society should only enforce natural law, and not dream up additional or "artificial" laws, and that trying to add to or subtract from the natural law is as foolish as trying to add to or subtract from other natural laws, such as the law of gravity. He argued that men and women could voluntarily band together to help ensure compliance with this natural law among their group, but that they could not compel others to join that voluntary association. Even within such a voluntary association, he believed that people or groups could only rightly compel compliance with the natural law, which was generally extremely simple and basically entailed the command to "live honestly, hurt no one, and give everyone his or her due." In an 1882 publication entitled Natural Law; or The Science of Justice, Spooner set out to explain the concept of natural law. In it, he made a distinction between those things that everyone has a legal duty to either do or to refrain from doing, and which others can and must compel in others, and those things which everyone has a moral duty to do but which must be left up to each person's own judgment and which no one has the right or duty to compel. Below is a table based upon Spooner's 1882 text, generally following the order and wording of his argument: The left column (labeled "Legal Duty" and highlighted in yellow), in Spooner's view, constitutes those things which are part of the natural law, and can actually be the only things which anyone can rightfully use force to uphold. He says that everyone has a duty to refrain from injuring others, and that force may and must be used when someone sees someone else in the act of injuring someone else. Spooner further argues in that 1882 text that nearly everyone understands these natural law prohibitions and duties before they are even old enough to know that "three and three are six, or five and five ten" (9). The right column (labeled "Moral Duty" and highlighted in green), in Spooner's view, constitutes those things which we do have a moral duty to perform, but which no one else can compel us to do: we must judge the extent to which we are able to do those things, and how we wish to best accomplish them when we do decide to do them. Thus, in Spooner's view, any so-called law that goes beyond the legal duties in the left column (or, worse yet, directly contradicts and violates those legal duties, as did the Fugitive Slave Acts) is actually no law at all and it can and must be disobeyed as illegal and criminal, regardless of whether it was written down on paper using legal-sounding language and passed by men and women in fancy buildings and stamped with fancy stamps and inscribed with fancy signatures. At this point, the reader may be thinking that all of this is very nice, but what on earth does it have to do with the general subject matter covered in this blog? The answer is: everything. Because, as insightful thinkers such as Mark Passio have articulated, violations of natural law are so contrary to our innate understanding of right and wrong (remember that Spooner says we know it before we even know that 3 + 3 = 6) that artificial laws which violate natural law must always be dressed up with various symbols and word-formulas designed to convey legitimacy, and reinforced by systems of mind control by which men and women who should know that those violations are immoral can somehow be made to believe that those violations of natural law are instead right and good and deserving of support. Institutionalized violations of natural law are nearly always accompanied by powerful forms of illusion, or the creation of "false realities" that enable those violations to appear legitimate, and to get people to go along with them. Therefore, seeing through these false realities is of absolutely primary importance. This blog primarily examines false realities which can be seen operating all around us, including in the realm of conventional history as taught in all the institutions of academia and reinforced by the organs of the conventional media (see for example "Piercing the fog of deception that hides the contours of history" and also the two short videos entitled "The importance of challenging false narratives"). These false realities or false narratives which cause people to accept gross violations of natural law are operating today with just as much force as they were operating in Spooner's day -- perhaps even more so. False narratives assist in getting people to accept the premise that so-called "laws" permitting government surveillance of individual men and women at virtually any time and place are legitimate (see here and here). This is a violation of natural law in that it enables hidden enforcers and observers to treat individuals as criminals on the suspicion that they might do something to harm others, elevating some to the status of "prison guards" and demoting everyone else to the status of prisoners under constant suspicion and surveillance. False narratives convince people to accept the idea that men and women can and should be locked up and denied their freedom for possessing certain plants or mushrooms known to induce a state of ecstasy. This is a violation of natural law in that it uses force to prohibit behavior that in no way harms the person or property of another or infringes on another's rights. False narratives convince people to accept the idea that men and women representing the government and wearing military gear and driving military vehicles can point military weapons at people assembling in the streets to express themselves, or at people in their homes in a neighborhood where fugitives are supposedly hiding. These are clear violations of natural law in that such actions basically declare that force can be used against citizens whenever it is convenient for the government to say there is a need to do so, an idea which Spooner eloquently demolishes in pages 27 and 28 of his text against the Fugitive Slave Acts. In a passage labeled "Section IV" of his 1882 treatise on Natural Law, Spooner declares that the rights belonging to every human being by the unchangeable principle of justice "necessarily remain with him [or her] during life," and although these rights are "capable of being trampled upon" they are nevertheless "incapable of being blotted out, extinguished, annihilated, or separated from" each and every human being, and that there is no authority high enough to simply declare them null or void. False narratives have even apparently convinced some people that it is somehow excusable to cover up evidence of the potentially harmful effects of vaccines on certain children in order to support "herd immunity." All of the above examples, along with the many other violations of natural law currently taking place, are enabled and excused by a variety of false realities or false narratives, created and maintained in order to lend an air of legitimacy to these violations. So were many other horrendous violations of natural law which were enabled by false narratives and illusions throughout history, including the enslavement of Africans which Spooner argued against in the 1850s, to the destruction of Native American tribes in the western US after the end of the US Civil War and the seizure of their lands and their confinement to reservations or "agencies," to the seizure of the Hawaiian Islands and the Philippines in the years after that, and on and on right up to the present. All of the above examples were enabled by lies, illusions, and false narratives or false realities. For more on breaking through illusions and false realities, and creating new realities, see for example this previous post entitled "Jon Rappoport's talk on the trickster-god and creating reality." It is one of Lysander Spooner's singular contributions that he perceived and forcefully argued that a criminal "law" is no law at all, and that men and women have the right and the duty to treat it as such, and to inform others of their right to do the same. Putting something on paper doesn't make it a "law" -- even if it has been adorned with all the necessary stamps and signatures. As Spooner alludes in the writings linked above, the US Constitution as originally designed, and especially the Bill of Rights as originally conceived, were designed to safeguard natural-law rights in many ways, and to the extent that Schoolhouse Rock taught those principles to a new generation in the 1970s, it can be commended. Perhaps Spooner's arguments about an illegal law being no law at all could not really be expected to be squeezed into the "I'm Just a Bill" song. But Lysander Spooner's arguments deserve to be brought into the modern era, in much the same way that the creators of Schoolhouse Rock tried to speak to the younger generation of the 1970s using the language and imagery of the 1970s. Spooner's arguments on behalf of the individual's rights under natural law -- rights which could never be abridged by any authority -- and his arguments against the creation of arbitrary "laws" which everyone has to obey just because a legislature or a president gave them the title of a "law" deserve examination, consideration, and thoughtful debate today more than ever. And the false narratives supporting so-called laws which supposedly authorize some people to use violence against others, or to threaten violence against others, or to take away the freedom of others when those others have not done anything to harm anyone else's persons or property, must be shown to be the form of mind control that they are. No individuals or groups can give themselves the right to violate natural law and in doing so to infringe on anyone else's rights, simply by writing something down on a "sad little scrap of paper."

<urn:uuid:17474726-e53e-48c9-a980-028439f26526>

CC-MAIN-2018-13

http://www.starmythworld.com/mathisencorollary/2014/09/does-writing-something-on-piece-of.html

s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2018-13/segments/1521257647892.89/warc/CC-MAIN-20180322151300-20180322171300-00710.warc.gz

en

<urn:uuid:17474726-e53e-48c9-a980-028439f26526>_4

In I'm just a bill," we witness the progress by which "that sad little scrap of paper" receives a fancy seal and a president's signature and becomes a law ("He signed ya, Bill: Now you're a Law!").

"Whew! You sure gotta climb a lot of steps to get to the Capitol Building here in Washington. Well I wonder who that sad little scrap of paper is?" And with those words began one of my childhood favorite Schoolhouse Rock videos, which used to be on television back in the early 1970s when I wasn't really old enough to have any idea what exactly they were all about, or why they would sometimes show up in between episodes of Superfriends, Speed Racer, or Sigmund and the Sea Monsters. In I'm just a bill," we witness the progress by which "that sad little scrap of paper" receives a fancy seal and a president's signature and becomes a law ("He signed ya, Bill: Now you're a Law!"). Although the video does an admirable job depicting some of the checks and balances contained in the US Constitution, through which the members of both houses of the legislature must agree to send the bill forward to the executive branch for final approval before any proposed bill is signed into law, it does tend to convey the impression that any "good idea" can be transformed into "a Law" through the magical process of being debated by important-looking men in impressive-looking buildings with lots of steps and Greek columns, on top of high hills (and filled with long rows of impassive US Marines in dress blue uniforms, and statues of distinguished statesmen from previous generations), signed by the president using a fountain pen, and affixed with a shiny-looking seal with a ribbon. Nineteenth-century abolitionist, legal scholar and philosopher Lysander Spooner (1808 - 1887) would vehemently disagree that something becomes "a law" just because it goes through the above process and receives a president's signature and a fancy stamp. In fact, he published a treatise in 1850 entitled A Defence for Fugitive Slaves against the Acts of Congress of February 12, 1793 and September 18, 1850, in which he argued that an illegal law is no law at all, and confers no obligation on anyone to obey it, nor any authority to anyone desiring to enforce it. He begins his treatise with the complete copy of each of the two acts in question, both of which were considered "law" in 1850, compelling men or women who knew of a "fugitive slave" to help catch that "fugitive slave" or face penalties including fines and imprisonment (the term "slave" is put in quotation marks here because Spooner argues that no person can ever own another person, and that there actually is no such thing as a legal slave or the legal condition of slavery, all so-called "laws" which make one person the property of another being illegal and criminal). Those two so-called laws (the Fugitive Slave Act of 1793 and the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850) were both signed by the presidents of their day, George Washington in the first instance and Millard Fillmore in the second (they also bear the signatures of the respective Speakers of the House and Presidents of the Senate). But these signatures do not make them true laws, according to Spooner's arguments. Spooner demonstrates that holding anyone else as property is a crime, and that putting something on paper, stamping it with fancy seals, embellishing it with fancy legal language, and endorsing it with the signatures of people bearing impressive titles does not make it into law: it's still just a "sad little scrap of paper" in his eyes. He even goes so far as to say that men and women have the right to resist illegal laws, in what is undoubtedly among the most important sections of his argument, found on pages 27 and 28. There, he powerfully dismantles the counter-arguments that he anticipates from those who would argue that once something is "a law," it must be obeyed until it is repealed. If it were really true that an illegal or unconstitutional law must be obeyed until repealed, he reasons, then "there would therefore be no difference at all between a constitutional and an unconstitutional law, in respect to their binding force; and that would be equivalent to abolishing the constitution, and giving to the government unlimited power" (28). Those who would disagree with Lysander Spooner on this point are invited to participate in a mental experiment, in which they imagine that the president has signed a law saying that if you in any way hinder the search for an escaped slave, or in any way assist a person who has been designated a "slave" and who has run away and is hiding from the authorities, then you yourself are a criminal and can be subject to enormous fines and imprisonment. Note that this is not just a hypothetical scenario: the first and the thirteenth presidents of the United States each signed such a proposition into "law." Today, nobody reading this blog would likely argue that they would feel a moral duty to obey such a "law," or that they would have to actually support it until such time as they could eventually get it repealed through the same arduous process depicted in the Schoolhouse Rock video shown above. Nearly every man or woman would agree with Spooner that the institution of slavery and "laws" enforcing one person's ability to "own" another are not laws but rather outrageous crimes, and would reject the notion that writing such a "law" down on a piece of paper, stamping it with a pretty seal and adding some flowery signatures suddenly turns it into something that must be willingly and voluntarily obeyed until it can be debated and eventually repealed. Writing something on a piece of paper does not make it a law. But, if this is true, then what does make something a law? Lysander Spooner argued that the actions of men and women cannot actually make anything a law, but that there is already an immutable or unchangeable universal law which he called "Natural Law" or the "Science of Justice." He believed that human society should only enforce natural law, and not dream up additional or "artificial" laws, and that trying to add to or subtract from the natural law is as foolish as trying to add to or subtract from other natural laws, such as the law of gravity. He argued that men and women could voluntarily band together to help ensure compliance with this natural law among their group, but that they could not compel others to join that voluntary association. Even within such a voluntary association, he believed that people or groups could only rightly compel compliance with the natural law, which was generally extremely simple and basically entailed the command to "live honestly, hurt no one, and give everyone his or her due." In an 1882 publication entitled Natural Law; or The Science of Justice, Spooner set out to explain the concept of natural law. In it, he made a distinction between those things that everyone has a legal duty to either do or to refrain from doing, and which others can and must compel in others, and those things which everyone has a moral duty to do but which must be left up to each person's own judgment and which no one has the right or duty to compel. Below is a table based upon Spooner's 1882 text, generally following the order and wording of his argument: The left column (labeled "Legal Duty" and highlighted in yellow), in Spooner's view, constitutes those things which are part of the natural law, and can actually be the only things which anyone can rightfully use force to uphold. He says that everyone has a duty to refrain from injuring others, and that force may and must be used when someone sees someone else in the act of injuring someone else. Spooner further argues in that 1882 text that nearly everyone understands these natural law prohibitions and duties before they are even old enough to know that "three and three are six, or five and five ten" (9). The right column (labeled "Moral Duty" and highlighted in green), in Spooner's view, constitutes those things which we do have a moral duty to perform, but which no one else can compel us to do: we must judge the extent to which we are able to do those things, and how we wish to best accomplish them when we do decide to do them. Thus, in Spooner's view, any so-called law that goes beyond the legal duties in the left column (or, worse yet, directly contradicts and violates those legal duties, as did the Fugitive Slave Acts) is actually no law at all and it can and must be disobeyed as illegal and criminal, regardless of whether it was written down on paper using legal-sounding language and passed by men and women in fancy buildings and stamped with fancy stamps and inscribed with fancy signatures. At this point, the reader may be thinking that all of this is very nice, but what on earth does it have to do with the general subject matter covered in this blog? The answer is: everything. Because, as insightful thinkers such as Mark Passio have articulated, violations of natural law are so contrary to our innate understanding of right and wrong (remember that Spooner says we know it before we even know that 3 + 3 = 6) that artificial laws which violate natural law must always be dressed up with various symbols and word-formulas designed to convey legitimacy, and reinforced by systems of mind control by which men and women who should know that those violations are immoral can somehow be made to believe that those violations of natural law are instead right and good and deserving of support. Institutionalized violations of natural law are nearly always accompanied by powerful forms of illusion, or the creation of "false realities" that enable those violations to appear legitimate, and to get people to go along with them. Therefore, seeing through these false realities is of absolutely primary importance. This blog primarily examines false realities which can be seen operating all around us, including in the realm of conventional history as taught in all the institutions of academia and reinforced by the organs of the conventional media (see for example "Piercing the fog of deception that hides the contours of history" and also the two short videos entitled "The importance of challenging false narratives"). These false realities or false narratives which cause people to accept gross violations of natural law are operating today with just as much force as they were operating in Spooner's day -- perhaps even more so. False narratives assist in getting people to accept the premise that so-called "laws" permitting government surveillance of individual men and women at virtually any time and place are legitimate (see here and here). This is a violation of natural law in that it enables hidden enforcers and observers to treat individuals as criminals on the suspicion that they might do something to harm others, elevating some to the status of "prison guards" and demoting everyone else to the status of prisoners under constant suspicion and surveillance. False narratives convince people to accept the idea that men and women can and should be locked up and denied their freedom for possessing certain plants or mushrooms known to induce a state of ecstasy. This is a violation of natural law in that it uses force to prohibit behavior that in no way harms the person or property of another or infringes on another's rights. False narratives convince people to accept the idea that men and women representing the government and wearing military gear and driving military vehicles can point military weapons at people assembling in the streets to express themselves, or at people in their homes in a neighborhood where fugitives are supposedly hiding. These are clear violations of natural law in that such actions basically declare that force can be used against citizens whenever it is convenient for the government to say there is a need to do so, an idea which Spooner eloquently demolishes in pages 27 and 28 of his text against the Fugitive Slave Acts. In a passage labeled "Section IV" of his 1882 treatise on Natural Law, Spooner declares that the rights belonging to every human being by the unchangeable principle of justice "necessarily remain with him [or her] during life," and although these rights are "capable of being trampled upon" they are nevertheless "incapable of being blotted out, extinguished, annihilated, or separated from" each and every human being, and that there is no authority high enough to simply declare them null or void. False narratives have even apparently convinced some people that it is somehow excusable to cover up evidence of the potentially harmful effects of vaccines on certain children in order to support "herd immunity." All of the above examples, along with the many other violations of natural law currently taking place, are enabled and excused by a variety of false realities or false narratives, created and maintained in order to lend an air of legitimacy to these violations. So were many other horrendous violations of natural law which were enabled by false narratives and illusions throughout history, including the enslavement of Africans which Spooner argued against in the 1850s, to the destruction of Native American tribes in the western US after the end of the US Civil War and the seizure of their lands and their confinement to reservations or "agencies," to the seizure of the Hawaiian Islands and the Philippines in the years after that, and on and on right up to the present. All of the above examples were enabled by lies, illusions, and false narratives or false realities. For more on breaking through illusions and false realities, and creating new realities, see for example this previous post entitled "Jon Rappoport's talk on the trickster-god and creating reality." It is one of Lysander Spooner's singular contributions that he perceived and forcefully argued that a criminal "law" is no law at all, and that men and women have the right and the duty to treat it as such, and to inform others of their right to do the same. Putting something on paper doesn't make it a "law" -- even if it has been adorned with all the necessary stamps and signatures. As Spooner alludes in the writings linked above, the US Constitution as originally designed, and especially the Bill of Rights as originally conceived, were designed to safeguard natural-law rights in many ways, and to the extent that Schoolhouse Rock taught those principles to a new generation in the 1970s, it can be commended. Perhaps Spooner's arguments about an illegal law being no law at all could not really be expected to be squeezed into the "I'm Just a Bill" song. But Lysander Spooner's arguments deserve to be brought into the modern era, in much the same way that the creators of Schoolhouse Rock tried to speak to the younger generation of the 1970s using the language and imagery of the 1970s. Spooner's arguments on behalf of the individual's rights under natural law -- rights which could never be abridged by any authority -- and his arguments against the creation of arbitrary "laws" which everyone has to obey just because a legislature or a president gave them the title of a "law" deserve examination, consideration, and thoughtful debate today more than ever. And the false narratives supporting so-called laws which supposedly authorize some people to use violence against others, or to threaten violence against others, or to take away the freedom of others when those others have not done anything to harm anyone else's persons or property, must be shown to be the form of mind control that they are. No individuals or groups can give themselves the right to violate natural law and in doing so to infringe on anyone else's rights, simply by writing something down on a "sad little scrap of paper."

<urn:uuid:17474726-e53e-48c9-a980-028439f26526>

CC-MAIN-2018-13

http://www.starmythworld.com/mathisencorollary/2014/09/does-writing-something-on-piece-of.html

s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2018-13/segments/1521257647892.89/warc/CC-MAIN-20180322151300-20180322171300-00710.warc.gz

en

<urn:uuid:17474726-e53e-48c9-a980-028439f26526>_6

Nineteenth-century abolitionist, legal scholar and philosopher Lysander Spooner (1808 - 1887) would vehemently disagree that something becomes "a law" just because it goes through the above process and receives a president's signature and a fancy stamp.

"Whew! You sure gotta climb a lot of steps to get to the Capitol Building here in Washington. Well I wonder who that sad little scrap of paper is?" And with those words began one of my childhood favorite Schoolhouse Rock videos, which used to be on television back in the early 1970s when I wasn't really old enough to have any idea what exactly they were all about, or why they would sometimes show up in between episodes of Superfriends, Speed Racer, or Sigmund and the Sea Monsters. In I'm just a bill," we witness the progress by which "that sad little scrap of paper" receives a fancy seal and a president's signature and becomes a law ("He signed ya, Bill: Now you're a Law!"). Although the video does an admirable job depicting some of the checks and balances contained in the US Constitution, through which the members of both houses of the legislature must agree to send the bill forward to the executive branch for final approval before any proposed bill is signed into law, it does tend to convey the impression that any "good idea" can be transformed into "a Law" through the magical process of being debated by important-looking men in impressive-looking buildings with lots of steps and Greek columns, on top of high hills (and filled with long rows of impassive US Marines in dress blue uniforms, and statues of distinguished statesmen from previous generations), signed by the president using a fountain pen, and affixed with a shiny-looking seal with a ribbon. Nineteenth-century abolitionist, legal scholar and philosopher Lysander Spooner (1808 - 1887) would vehemently disagree that something becomes "a law" just because it goes through the above process and receives a president's signature and a fancy stamp. In fact, he published a treatise in 1850 entitled A Defence for Fugitive Slaves against the Acts of Congress of February 12, 1793 and September 18, 1850, in which he argued that an illegal law is no law at all, and confers no obligation on anyone to obey it, nor any authority to anyone desiring to enforce it. He begins his treatise with the complete copy of each of the two acts in question, both of which were considered "law" in 1850, compelling men or women who knew of a "fugitive slave" to help catch that "fugitive slave" or face penalties including fines and imprisonment (the term "slave" is put in quotation marks here because Spooner argues that no person can ever own another person, and that there actually is no such thing as a legal slave or the legal condition of slavery, all so-called "laws" which make one person the property of another being illegal and criminal). Those two so-called laws (the Fugitive Slave Act of 1793 and the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850) were both signed by the presidents of their day, George Washington in the first instance and Millard Fillmore in the second (they also bear the signatures of the respective Speakers of the House and Presidents of the Senate). But these signatures do not make them true laws, according to Spooner's arguments. Spooner demonstrates that holding anyone else as property is a crime, and that putting something on paper, stamping it with fancy seals, embellishing it with fancy legal language, and endorsing it with the signatures of people bearing impressive titles does not make it into law: it's still just a "sad little scrap of paper" in his eyes. He even goes so far as to say that men and women have the right to resist illegal laws, in what is undoubtedly among the most important sections of his argument, found on pages 27 and 28. There, he powerfully dismantles the counter-arguments that he anticipates from those who would argue that once something is "a law," it must be obeyed until it is repealed. If it were really true that an illegal or unconstitutional law must be obeyed until repealed, he reasons, then "there would therefore be no difference at all between a constitutional and an unconstitutional law, in respect to their binding force; and that would be equivalent to abolishing the constitution, and giving to the government unlimited power" (28). Those who would disagree with Lysander Spooner on this point are invited to participate in a mental experiment, in which they imagine that the president has signed a law saying that if you in any way hinder the search for an escaped slave, or in any way assist a person who has been designated a "slave" and who has run away and is hiding from the authorities, then you yourself are a criminal and can be subject to enormous fines and imprisonment. Note that this is not just a hypothetical scenario: the first and the thirteenth presidents of the United States each signed such a proposition into "law." Today, nobody reading this blog would likely argue that they would feel a moral duty to obey such a "law," or that they would have to actually support it until such time as they could eventually get it repealed through the same arduous process depicted in the Schoolhouse Rock video shown above. Nearly every man or woman would agree with Spooner that the institution of slavery and "laws" enforcing one person's ability to "own" another are not laws but rather outrageous crimes, and would reject the notion that writing such a "law" down on a piece of paper, stamping it with a pretty seal and adding some flowery signatures suddenly turns it into something that must be willingly and voluntarily obeyed until it can be debated and eventually repealed. Writing something on a piece of paper does not make it a law. But, if this is true, then what does make something a law? Lysander Spooner argued that the actions of men and women cannot actually make anything a law, but that there is already an immutable or unchangeable universal law which he called "Natural Law" or the "Science of Justice." He believed that human society should only enforce natural law, and not dream up additional or "artificial" laws, and that trying to add to or subtract from the natural law is as foolish as trying to add to or subtract from other natural laws, such as the law of gravity. He argued that men and women could voluntarily band together to help ensure compliance with this natural law among their group, but that they could not compel others to join that voluntary association. Even within such a voluntary association, he believed that people or groups could only rightly compel compliance with the natural law, which was generally extremely simple and basically entailed the command to "live honestly, hurt no one, and give everyone his or her due." In an 1882 publication entitled Natural Law; or The Science of Justice, Spooner set out to explain the concept of natural law. In it, he made a distinction between those things that everyone has a legal duty to either do or to refrain from doing, and which others can and must compel in others, and those things which everyone has a moral duty to do but which must be left up to each person's own judgment and which no one has the right or duty to compel. Below is a table based upon Spooner's 1882 text, generally following the order and wording of his argument: The left column (labeled "Legal Duty" and highlighted in yellow), in Spooner's view, constitutes those things which are part of the natural law, and can actually be the only things which anyone can rightfully use force to uphold. He says that everyone has a duty to refrain from injuring others, and that force may and must be used when someone sees someone else in the act of injuring someone else. Spooner further argues in that 1882 text that nearly everyone understands these natural law prohibitions and duties before they are even old enough to know that "three and three are six, or five and five ten" (9). The right column (labeled "Moral Duty" and highlighted in green), in Spooner's view, constitutes those things which we do have a moral duty to perform, but which no one else can compel us to do: we must judge the extent to which we are able to do those things, and how we wish to best accomplish them when we do decide to do them. Thus, in Spooner's view, any so-called law that goes beyond the legal duties in the left column (or, worse yet, directly contradicts and violates those legal duties, as did the Fugitive Slave Acts) is actually no law at all and it can and must be disobeyed as illegal and criminal, regardless of whether it was written down on paper using legal-sounding language and passed by men and women in fancy buildings and stamped with fancy stamps and inscribed with fancy signatures. At this point, the reader may be thinking that all of this is very nice, but what on earth does it have to do with the general subject matter covered in this blog? The answer is: everything. Because, as insightful thinkers such as Mark Passio have articulated, violations of natural law are so contrary to our innate understanding of right and wrong (remember that Spooner says we know it before we even know that 3 + 3 = 6) that artificial laws which violate natural law must always be dressed up with various symbols and word-formulas designed to convey legitimacy, and reinforced by systems of mind control by which men and women who should know that those violations are immoral can somehow be made to believe that those violations of natural law are instead right and good and deserving of support. Institutionalized violations of natural law are nearly always accompanied by powerful forms of illusion, or the creation of "false realities" that enable those violations to appear legitimate, and to get people to go along with them. Therefore, seeing through these false realities is of absolutely primary importance. This blog primarily examines false realities which can be seen operating all around us, including in the realm of conventional history as taught in all the institutions of academia and reinforced by the organs of the conventional media (see for example "Piercing the fog of deception that hides the contours of history" and also the two short videos entitled "The importance of challenging false narratives"). These false realities or false narratives which cause people to accept gross violations of natural law are operating today with just as much force as they were operating in Spooner's day -- perhaps even more so. False narratives assist in getting people to accept the premise that so-called "laws" permitting government surveillance of individual men and women at virtually any time and place are legitimate (see here and here). This is a violation of natural law in that it enables hidden enforcers and observers to treat individuals as criminals on the suspicion that they might do something to harm others, elevating some to the status of "prison guards" and demoting everyone else to the status of prisoners under constant suspicion and surveillance. False narratives convince people to accept the idea that men and women can and should be locked up and denied their freedom for possessing certain plants or mushrooms known to induce a state of ecstasy. This is a violation of natural law in that it uses force to prohibit behavior that in no way harms the person or property of another or infringes on another's rights. False narratives convince people to accept the idea that men and women representing the government and wearing military gear and driving military vehicles can point military weapons at people assembling in the streets to express themselves, or at people in their homes in a neighborhood where fugitives are supposedly hiding. These are clear violations of natural law in that such actions basically declare that force can be used against citizens whenever it is convenient for the government to say there is a need to do so, an idea which Spooner eloquently demolishes in pages 27 and 28 of his text against the Fugitive Slave Acts. In a passage labeled "Section IV" of his 1882 treatise on Natural Law, Spooner declares that the rights belonging to every human being by the unchangeable principle of justice "necessarily remain with him [or her] during life," and although these rights are "capable of being trampled upon" they are nevertheless "incapable of being blotted out, extinguished, annihilated, or separated from" each and every human being, and that there is no authority high enough to simply declare them null or void. False narratives have even apparently convinced some people that it is somehow excusable to cover up evidence of the potentially harmful effects of vaccines on certain children in order to support "herd immunity." All of the above examples, along with the many other violations of natural law currently taking place, are enabled and excused by a variety of false realities or false narratives, created and maintained in order to lend an air of legitimacy to these violations. So were many other horrendous violations of natural law which were enabled by false narratives and illusions throughout history, including the enslavement of Africans which Spooner argued against in the 1850s, to the destruction of Native American tribes in the western US after the end of the US Civil War and the seizure of their lands and their confinement to reservations or "agencies," to the seizure of the Hawaiian Islands and the Philippines in the years after that, and on and on right up to the present. All of the above examples were enabled by lies, illusions, and false narratives or false realities. For more on breaking through illusions and false realities, and creating new realities, see for example this previous post entitled "Jon Rappoport's talk on the trickster-god and creating reality." It is one of Lysander Spooner's singular contributions that he perceived and forcefully argued that a criminal "law" is no law at all, and that men and women have the right and the duty to treat it as such, and to inform others of their right to do the same. Putting something on paper doesn't make it a "law" -- even if it has been adorned with all the necessary stamps and signatures. As Spooner alludes in the writings linked above, the US Constitution as originally designed, and especially the Bill of Rights as originally conceived, were designed to safeguard natural-law rights in many ways, and to the extent that Schoolhouse Rock taught those principles to a new generation in the 1970s, it can be commended. Perhaps Spooner's arguments about an illegal law being no law at all could not really be expected to be squeezed into the "I'm Just a Bill" song. But Lysander Spooner's arguments deserve to be brought into the modern era, in much the same way that the creators of Schoolhouse Rock tried to speak to the younger generation of the 1970s using the language and imagery of the 1970s. Spooner's arguments on behalf of the individual's rights under natural law -- rights which could never be abridged by any authority -- and his arguments against the creation of arbitrary "laws" which everyone has to obey just because a legislature or a president gave them the title of a "law" deserve examination, consideration, and thoughtful debate today more than ever. And the false narratives supporting so-called laws which supposedly authorize some people to use violence against others, or to threaten violence against others, or to take away the freedom of others when those others have not done anything to harm anyone else's persons or property, must be shown to be the form of mind control that they are. No individuals or groups can give themselves the right to violate natural law and in doing so to infringe on anyone else's rights, simply by writing something down on a "sad little scrap of paper."

<urn:uuid:17474726-e53e-48c9-a980-028439f26526>

CC-MAIN-2018-13

http://www.starmythworld.com/mathisencorollary/2014/09/does-writing-something-on-piece-of.html

s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2018-13/segments/1521257647892.89/warc/CC-MAIN-20180322151300-20180322171300-00710.warc.gz

en

<urn:uuid:17474726-e53e-48c9-a980-028439f26526>_7

In fact, he published a treatise in 1850 entitled A Defence for Fugitive Slaves against the Acts of Congress of February 12, 1793 and September 18, 1850, in which he argued that an illegal law is no law at all, and confers no obligation on anyone to obey it, nor any authority to anyone desiring to enforce it.

"Whew! You sure gotta climb a lot of steps to get to the Capitol Building here in Washington. Well I wonder who that sad little scrap of paper is?" And with those words began one of my childhood favorite Schoolhouse Rock videos, which used to be on television back in the early 1970s when I wasn't really old enough to have any idea what exactly they were all about, or why they would sometimes show up in between episodes of Superfriends, Speed Racer, or Sigmund and the Sea Monsters. In I'm just a bill," we witness the progress by which "that sad little scrap of paper" receives a fancy seal and a president's signature and becomes a law ("He signed ya, Bill: Now you're a Law!"). Although the video does an admirable job depicting some of the checks and balances contained in the US Constitution, through which the members of both houses of the legislature must agree to send the bill forward to the executive branch for final approval before any proposed bill is signed into law, it does tend to convey the impression that any "good idea" can be transformed into "a Law" through the magical process of being debated by important-looking men in impressive-looking buildings with lots of steps and Greek columns, on top of high hills (and filled with long rows of impassive US Marines in dress blue uniforms, and statues of distinguished statesmen from previous generations), signed by the president using a fountain pen, and affixed with a shiny-looking seal with a ribbon. Nineteenth-century abolitionist, legal scholar and philosopher Lysander Spooner (1808 - 1887) would vehemently disagree that something becomes "a law" just because it goes through the above process and receives a president's signature and a fancy stamp. In fact, he published a treatise in 1850 entitled A Defence for Fugitive Slaves against the Acts of Congress of February 12, 1793 and September 18, 1850, in which he argued that an illegal law is no law at all, and confers no obligation on anyone to obey it, nor any authority to anyone desiring to enforce it. He begins his treatise with the complete copy of each of the two acts in question, both of which were considered "law" in 1850, compelling men or women who knew of a "fugitive slave" to help catch that "fugitive slave" or face penalties including fines and imprisonment (the term "slave" is put in quotation marks here because Spooner argues that no person can ever own another person, and that there actually is no such thing as a legal slave or the legal condition of slavery, all so-called "laws" which make one person the property of another being illegal and criminal). Those two so-called laws (the Fugitive Slave Act of 1793 and the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850) were both signed by the presidents of their day, George Washington in the first instance and Millard Fillmore in the second (they also bear the signatures of the respective Speakers of the House and Presidents of the Senate). But these signatures do not make them true laws, according to Spooner's arguments. Spooner demonstrates that holding anyone else as property is a crime, and that putting something on paper, stamping it with fancy seals, embellishing it with fancy legal language, and endorsing it with the signatures of people bearing impressive titles does not make it into law: it's still just a "sad little scrap of paper" in his eyes. He even goes so far as to say that men and women have the right to resist illegal laws, in what is undoubtedly among the most important sections of his argument, found on pages 27 and 28. There, he powerfully dismantles the counter-arguments that he anticipates from those who would argue that once something is "a law," it must be obeyed until it is repealed. If it were really true that an illegal or unconstitutional law must be obeyed until repealed, he reasons, then "there would therefore be no difference at all between a constitutional and an unconstitutional law, in respect to their binding force; and that would be equivalent to abolishing the constitution, and giving to the government unlimited power" (28). Those who would disagree with Lysander Spooner on this point are invited to participate in a mental experiment, in which they imagine that the president has signed a law saying that if you in any way hinder the search for an escaped slave, or in any way assist a person who has been designated a "slave" and who has run away and is hiding from the authorities, then you yourself are a criminal and can be subject to enormous fines and imprisonment. Note that this is not just a hypothetical scenario: the first and the thirteenth presidents of the United States each signed such a proposition into "law." Today, nobody reading this blog would likely argue that they would feel a moral duty to obey such a "law," or that they would have to actually support it until such time as they could eventually get it repealed through the same arduous process depicted in the Schoolhouse Rock video shown above. Nearly every man or woman would agree with Spooner that the institution of slavery and "laws" enforcing one person's ability to "own" another are not laws but rather outrageous crimes, and would reject the notion that writing such a "law" down on a piece of paper, stamping it with a pretty seal and adding some flowery signatures suddenly turns it into something that must be willingly and voluntarily obeyed until it can be debated and eventually repealed. Writing something on a piece of paper does not make it a law. But, if this is true, then what does make something a law? Lysander Spooner argued that the actions of men and women cannot actually make anything a law, but that there is already an immutable or unchangeable universal law which he called "Natural Law" or the "Science of Justice." He believed that human society should only enforce natural law, and not dream up additional or "artificial" laws, and that trying to add to or subtract from the natural law is as foolish as trying to add to or subtract from other natural laws, such as the law of gravity. He argued that men and women could voluntarily band together to help ensure compliance with this natural law among their group, but that they could not compel others to join that voluntary association. Even within such a voluntary association, he believed that people or groups could only rightly compel compliance with the natural law, which was generally extremely simple and basically entailed the command to "live honestly, hurt no one, and give everyone his or her due." In an 1882 publication entitled Natural Law; or The Science of Justice, Spooner set out to explain the concept of natural law. In it, he made a distinction between those things that everyone has a legal duty to either do or to refrain from doing, and which others can and must compel in others, and those things which everyone has a moral duty to do but which must be left up to each person's own judgment and which no one has the right or duty to compel. Below is a table based upon Spooner's 1882 text, generally following the order and wording of his argument: The left column (labeled "Legal Duty" and highlighted in yellow), in Spooner's view, constitutes those things which are part of the natural law, and can actually be the only things which anyone can rightfully use force to uphold. He says that everyone has a duty to refrain from injuring others, and that force may and must be used when someone sees someone else in the act of injuring someone else. Spooner further argues in that 1882 text that nearly everyone understands these natural law prohibitions and duties before they are even old enough to know that "three and three are six, or five and five ten" (9). The right column (labeled "Moral Duty" and highlighted in green), in Spooner's view, constitutes those things which we do have a moral duty to perform, but which no one else can compel us to do: we must judge the extent to which we are able to do those things, and how we wish to best accomplish them when we do decide to do them. Thus, in Spooner's view, any so-called law that goes beyond the legal duties in the left column (or, worse yet, directly contradicts and violates those legal duties, as did the Fugitive Slave Acts) is actually no law at all and it can and must be disobeyed as illegal and criminal, regardless of whether it was written down on paper using legal-sounding language and passed by men and women in fancy buildings and stamped with fancy stamps and inscribed with fancy signatures. At this point, the reader may be thinking that all of this is very nice, but what on earth does it have to do with the general subject matter covered in this blog? The answer is: everything. Because, as insightful thinkers such as Mark Passio have articulated, violations of natural law are so contrary to our innate understanding of right and wrong (remember that Spooner says we know it before we even know that 3 + 3 = 6) that artificial laws which violate natural law must always be dressed up with various symbols and word-formulas designed to convey legitimacy, and reinforced by systems of mind control by which men and women who should know that those violations are immoral can somehow be made to believe that those violations of natural law are instead right and good and deserving of support. Institutionalized violations of natural law are nearly always accompanied by powerful forms of illusion, or the creation of "false realities" that enable those violations to appear legitimate, and to get people to go along with them. Therefore, seeing through these false realities is of absolutely primary importance. This blog primarily examines false realities which can be seen operating all around us, including in the realm of conventional history as taught in all the institutions of academia and reinforced by the organs of the conventional media (see for example "Piercing the fog of deception that hides the contours of history" and also the two short videos entitled "The importance of challenging false narratives"). These false realities or false narratives which cause people to accept gross violations of natural law are operating today with just as much force as they were operating in Spooner's day -- perhaps even more so. False narratives assist in getting people to accept the premise that so-called "laws" permitting government surveillance of individual men and women at virtually any time and place are legitimate (see here and here). This is a violation of natural law in that it enables hidden enforcers and observers to treat individuals as criminals on the suspicion that they might do something to harm others, elevating some to the status of "prison guards" and demoting everyone else to the status of prisoners under constant suspicion and surveillance. False narratives convince people to accept the idea that men and women can and should be locked up and denied their freedom for possessing certain plants or mushrooms known to induce a state of ecstasy. This is a violation of natural law in that it uses force to prohibit behavior that in no way harms the person or property of another or infringes on another's rights. False narratives convince people to accept the idea that men and women representing the government and wearing military gear and driving military vehicles can point military weapons at people assembling in the streets to express themselves, or at people in their homes in a neighborhood where fugitives are supposedly hiding. These are clear violations of natural law in that such actions basically declare that force can be used against citizens whenever it is convenient for the government to say there is a need to do so, an idea which Spooner eloquently demolishes in pages 27 and 28 of his text against the Fugitive Slave Acts. In a passage labeled "Section IV" of his 1882 treatise on Natural Law, Spooner declares that the rights belonging to every human being by the unchangeable principle of justice "necessarily remain with him [or her] during life," and although these rights are "capable of being trampled upon" they are nevertheless "incapable of being blotted out, extinguished, annihilated, or separated from" each and every human being, and that there is no authority high enough to simply declare them null or void. False narratives have even apparently convinced some people that it is somehow excusable to cover up evidence of the potentially harmful effects of vaccines on certain children in order to support "herd immunity." All of the above examples, along with the many other violations of natural law currently taking place, are enabled and excused by a variety of false realities or false narratives, created and maintained in order to lend an air of legitimacy to these violations. So were many other horrendous violations of natural law which were enabled by false narratives and illusions throughout history, including the enslavement of Africans which Spooner argued against in the 1850s, to the destruction of Native American tribes in the western US after the end of the US Civil War and the seizure of their lands and their confinement to reservations or "agencies," to the seizure of the Hawaiian Islands and the Philippines in the years after that, and on and on right up to the present. All of the above examples were enabled by lies, illusions, and false narratives or false realities. For more on breaking through illusions and false realities, and creating new realities, see for example this previous post entitled "Jon Rappoport's talk on the trickster-god and creating reality." It is one of Lysander Spooner's singular contributions that he perceived and forcefully argued that a criminal "law" is no law at all, and that men and women have the right and the duty to treat it as such, and to inform others of their right to do the same. Putting something on paper doesn't make it a "law" -- even if it has been adorned with all the necessary stamps and signatures. As Spooner alludes in the writings linked above, the US Constitution as originally designed, and especially the Bill of Rights as originally conceived, were designed to safeguard natural-law rights in many ways, and to the extent that Schoolhouse Rock taught those principles to a new generation in the 1970s, it can be commended. Perhaps Spooner's arguments about an illegal law being no law at all could not really be expected to be squeezed into the "I'm Just a Bill" song. But Lysander Spooner's arguments deserve to be brought into the modern era, in much the same way that the creators of Schoolhouse Rock tried to speak to the younger generation of the 1970s using the language and imagery of the 1970s. Spooner's arguments on behalf of the individual's rights under natural law -- rights which could never be abridged by any authority -- and his arguments against the creation of arbitrary "laws" which everyone has to obey just because a legislature or a president gave them the title of a "law" deserve examination, consideration, and thoughtful debate today more than ever. And the false narratives supporting so-called laws which supposedly authorize some people to use violence against others, or to threaten violence against others, or to take away the freedom of others when those others have not done anything to harm anyone else's persons or property, must be shown to be the form of mind control that they are. No individuals or groups can give themselves the right to violate natural law and in doing so to infringe on anyone else's rights, simply by writing something down on a "sad little scrap of paper."

<urn:uuid:17474726-e53e-48c9-a980-028439f26526>

CC-MAIN-2018-13

http://www.starmythworld.com/mathisencorollary/2014/09/does-writing-something-on-piece-of.html

s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2018-13/segments/1521257647892.89/warc/CC-MAIN-20180322151300-20180322171300-00710.warc.gz

en

<urn:uuid:17474726-e53e-48c9-a980-028439f26526>_9

Those two so-called laws (the Fugitive Slave Act of 1793 and the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850) were both signed by the presidents of their day, George Washington in the first instance and Millard Fillmore in the second (they also bear the signatures of the respective Speakers of the House and Presidents of the Senate).

"Whew! You sure gotta climb a lot of steps to get to the Capitol Building here in Washington. Well I wonder who that sad little scrap of paper is?" And with those words began one of my childhood favorite Schoolhouse Rock videos, which used to be on television back in the early 1970s when I wasn't really old enough to have any idea what exactly they were all about, or why they would sometimes show up in between episodes of Superfriends, Speed Racer, or Sigmund and the Sea Monsters. In I'm just a bill," we witness the progress by which "that sad little scrap of paper" receives a fancy seal and a president's signature and becomes a law ("He signed ya, Bill: Now you're a Law!"). Although the video does an admirable job depicting some of the checks and balances contained in the US Constitution, through which the members of both houses of the legislature must agree to send the bill forward to the executive branch for final approval before any proposed bill is signed into law, it does tend to convey the impression that any "good idea" can be transformed into "a Law" through the magical process of being debated by important-looking men in impressive-looking buildings with lots of steps and Greek columns, on top of high hills (and filled with long rows of impassive US Marines in dress blue uniforms, and statues of distinguished statesmen from previous generations), signed by the president using a fountain pen, and affixed with a shiny-looking seal with a ribbon. Nineteenth-century abolitionist, legal scholar and philosopher Lysander Spooner (1808 - 1887) would vehemently disagree that something becomes "a law" just because it goes through the above process and receives a president's signature and a fancy stamp. In fact, he published a treatise in 1850 entitled A Defence for Fugitive Slaves against the Acts of Congress of February 12, 1793 and September 18, 1850, in which he argued that an illegal law is no law at all, and confers no obligation on anyone to obey it, nor any authority to anyone desiring to enforce it. He begins his treatise with the complete copy of each of the two acts in question, both of which were considered "law" in 1850, compelling men or women who knew of a "fugitive slave" to help catch that "fugitive slave" or face penalties including fines and imprisonment (the term "slave" is put in quotation marks here because Spooner argues that no person can ever own another person, and that there actually is no such thing as a legal slave or the legal condition of slavery, all so-called "laws" which make one person the property of another being illegal and criminal). Those two so-called laws (the Fugitive Slave Act of 1793 and the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850) were both signed by the presidents of their day, George Washington in the first instance and Millard Fillmore in the second (they also bear the signatures of the respective Speakers of the House and Presidents of the Senate). But these signatures do not make them true laws, according to Spooner's arguments. Spooner demonstrates that holding anyone else as property is a crime, and that putting something on paper, stamping it with fancy seals, embellishing it with fancy legal language, and endorsing it with the signatures of people bearing impressive titles does not make it into law: it's still just a "sad little scrap of paper" in his eyes. He even goes so far as to say that men and women have the right to resist illegal laws, in what is undoubtedly among the most important sections of his argument, found on pages 27 and 28. There, he powerfully dismantles the counter-arguments that he anticipates from those who would argue that once something is "a law," it must be obeyed until it is repealed. If it were really true that an illegal or unconstitutional law must be obeyed until repealed, he reasons, then "there would therefore be no difference at all between a constitutional and an unconstitutional law, in respect to their binding force; and that would be equivalent to abolishing the constitution, and giving to the government unlimited power" (28). Those who would disagree with Lysander Spooner on this point are invited to participate in a mental experiment, in which they imagine that the president has signed a law saying that if you in any way hinder the search for an escaped slave, or in any way assist a person who has been designated a "slave" and who has run away and is hiding from the authorities, then you yourself are a criminal and can be subject to enormous fines and imprisonment. Note that this is not just a hypothetical scenario: the first and the thirteenth presidents of the United States each signed such a proposition into "law." Today, nobody reading this blog would likely argue that they would feel a moral duty to obey such a "law," or that they would have to actually support it until such time as they could eventually get it repealed through the same arduous process depicted in the Schoolhouse Rock video shown above. Nearly every man or woman would agree with Spooner that the institution of slavery and "laws" enforcing one person's ability to "own" another are not laws but rather outrageous crimes, and would reject the notion that writing such a "law" down on a piece of paper, stamping it with a pretty seal and adding some flowery signatures suddenly turns it into something that must be willingly and voluntarily obeyed until it can be debated and eventually repealed. Writing something on a piece of paper does not make it a law. But, if this is true, then what does make something a law? Lysander Spooner argued that the actions of men and women cannot actually make anything a law, but that there is already an immutable or unchangeable universal law which he called "Natural Law" or the "Science of Justice." He believed that human society should only enforce natural law, and not dream up additional or "artificial" laws, and that trying to add to or subtract from the natural law is as foolish as trying to add to or subtract from other natural laws, such as the law of gravity. He argued that men and women could voluntarily band together to help ensure compliance with this natural law among their group, but that they could not compel others to join that voluntary association. Even within such a voluntary association, he believed that people or groups could only rightly compel compliance with the natural law, which was generally extremely simple and basically entailed the command to "live honestly, hurt no one, and give everyone his or her due." In an 1882 publication entitled Natural Law; or The Science of Justice, Spooner set out to explain the concept of natural law. In it, he made a distinction between those things that everyone has a legal duty to either do or to refrain from doing, and which others can and must compel in others, and those things which everyone has a moral duty to do but which must be left up to each person's own judgment and which no one has the right or duty to compel. Below is a table based upon Spooner's 1882 text, generally following the order and wording of his argument: The left column (labeled "Legal Duty" and highlighted in yellow), in Spooner's view, constitutes those things which are part of the natural law, and can actually be the only things which anyone can rightfully use force to uphold. He says that everyone has a duty to refrain from injuring others, and that force may and must be used when someone sees someone else in the act of injuring someone else. Spooner further argues in that 1882 text that nearly everyone understands these natural law prohibitions and duties before they are even old enough to know that "three and three are six, or five and five ten" (9). The right column (labeled "Moral Duty" and highlighted in green), in Spooner's view, constitutes those things which we do have a moral duty to perform, but which no one else can compel us to do: we must judge the extent to which we are able to do those things, and how we wish to best accomplish them when we do decide to do them. Thus, in Spooner's view, any so-called law that goes beyond the legal duties in the left column (or, worse yet, directly contradicts and violates those legal duties, as did the Fugitive Slave Acts) is actually no law at all and it can and must be disobeyed as illegal and criminal, regardless of whether it was written down on paper using legal-sounding language and passed by men and women in fancy buildings and stamped with fancy stamps and inscribed with fancy signatures. At this point, the reader may be thinking that all of this is very nice, but what on earth does it have to do with the general subject matter covered in this blog? The answer is: everything. Because, as insightful thinkers such as Mark Passio have articulated, violations of natural law are so contrary to our innate understanding of right and wrong (remember that Spooner says we know it before we even know that 3 + 3 = 6) that artificial laws which violate natural law must always be dressed up with various symbols and word-formulas designed to convey legitimacy, and reinforced by systems of mind control by which men and women who should know that those violations are immoral can somehow be made to believe that those violations of natural law are instead right and good and deserving of support. Institutionalized violations of natural law are nearly always accompanied by powerful forms of illusion, or the creation of "false realities" that enable those violations to appear legitimate, and to get people to go along with them. Therefore, seeing through these false realities is of absolutely primary importance. This blog primarily examines false realities which can be seen operating all around us, including in the realm of conventional history as taught in all the institutions of academia and reinforced by the organs of the conventional media (see for example "Piercing the fog of deception that hides the contours of history" and also the two short videos entitled "The importance of challenging false narratives"). These false realities or false narratives which cause people to accept gross violations of natural law are operating today with just as much force as they were operating in Spooner's day -- perhaps even more so. False narratives assist in getting people to accept the premise that so-called "laws" permitting government surveillance of individual men and women at virtually any time and place are legitimate (see here and here). This is a violation of natural law in that it enables hidden enforcers and observers to treat individuals as criminals on the suspicion that they might do something to harm others, elevating some to the status of "prison guards" and demoting everyone else to the status of prisoners under constant suspicion and surveillance. False narratives convince people to accept the idea that men and women can and should be locked up and denied their freedom for possessing certain plants or mushrooms known to induce a state of ecstasy. This is a violation of natural law in that it uses force to prohibit behavior that in no way harms the person or property of another or infringes on another's rights. False narratives convince people to accept the idea that men and women representing the government and wearing military gear and driving military vehicles can point military weapons at people assembling in the streets to express themselves, or at people in their homes in a neighborhood where fugitives are supposedly hiding. These are clear violations of natural law in that such actions basically declare that force can be used against citizens whenever it is convenient for the government to say there is a need to do so, an idea which Spooner eloquently demolishes in pages 27 and 28 of his text against the Fugitive Slave Acts. In a passage labeled "Section IV" of his 1882 treatise on Natural Law, Spooner declares that the rights belonging to every human being by the unchangeable principle of justice "necessarily remain with him [or her] during life," and although these rights are "capable of being trampled upon" they are nevertheless "incapable of being blotted out, extinguished, annihilated, or separated from" each and every human being, and that there is no authority high enough to simply declare them null or void. False narratives have even apparently convinced some people that it is somehow excusable to cover up evidence of the potentially harmful effects of vaccines on certain children in order to support "herd immunity." All of the above examples, along with the many other violations of natural law currently taking place, are enabled and excused by a variety of false realities or false narratives, created and maintained in order to lend an air of legitimacy to these violations. So were many other horrendous violations of natural law which were enabled by false narratives and illusions throughout history, including the enslavement of Africans which Spooner argued against in the 1850s, to the destruction of Native American tribes in the western US after the end of the US Civil War and the seizure of their lands and their confinement to reservations or "agencies," to the seizure of the Hawaiian Islands and the Philippines in the years after that, and on and on right up to the present. All of the above examples were enabled by lies, illusions, and false narratives or false realities. For more on breaking through illusions and false realities, and creating new realities, see for example this previous post entitled "Jon Rappoport's talk on the trickster-god and creating reality." It is one of Lysander Spooner's singular contributions that he perceived and forcefully argued that a criminal "law" is no law at all, and that men and women have the right and the duty to treat it as such, and to inform others of their right to do the same. Putting something on paper doesn't make it a "law" -- even if it has been adorned with all the necessary stamps and signatures. As Spooner alludes in the writings linked above, the US Constitution as originally designed, and especially the Bill of Rights as originally conceived, were designed to safeguard natural-law rights in many ways, and to the extent that Schoolhouse Rock taught those principles to a new generation in the 1970s, it can be commended. Perhaps Spooner's arguments about an illegal law being no law at all could not really be expected to be squeezed into the "I'm Just a Bill" song. But Lysander Spooner's arguments deserve to be brought into the modern era, in much the same way that the creators of Schoolhouse Rock tried to speak to the younger generation of the 1970s using the language and imagery of the 1970s. Spooner's arguments on behalf of the individual's rights under natural law -- rights which could never be abridged by any authority -- and his arguments against the creation of arbitrary "laws" which everyone has to obey just because a legislature or a president gave them the title of a "law" deserve examination, consideration, and thoughtful debate today more than ever. And the false narratives supporting so-called laws which supposedly authorize some people to use violence against others, or to threaten violence against others, or to take away the freedom of others when those others have not done anything to harm anyone else's persons or property, must be shown to be the form of mind control that they are. No individuals or groups can give themselves the right to violate natural law and in doing so to infringe on anyone else's rights, simply by writing something down on a "sad little scrap of paper."

<urn:uuid:17474726-e53e-48c9-a980-028439f26526>

CC-MAIN-2018-13

http://www.starmythworld.com/mathisencorollary/2014/09/does-writing-something-on-piece-of.html

s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2018-13/segments/1521257647892.89/warc/CC-MAIN-20180322151300-20180322171300-00710.warc.gz

en

<urn:uuid:17474726-e53e-48c9-a980-028439f26526>_10

But these signatures do not make them true laws, according to Spooner's arguments.

"Whew! You sure gotta climb a lot of steps to get to the Capitol Building here in Washington. Well I wonder who that sad little scrap of paper is?" And with those words began one of my childhood favorite Schoolhouse Rock videos, which used to be on television back in the early 1970s when I wasn't really old enough to have any idea what exactly they were all about, or why they would sometimes show up in between episodes of Superfriends, Speed Racer, or Sigmund and the Sea Monsters. In I'm just a bill," we witness the progress by which "that sad little scrap of paper" receives a fancy seal and a president's signature and becomes a law ("He signed ya, Bill: Now you're a Law!"). Although the video does an admirable job depicting some of the checks and balances contained in the US Constitution, through which the members of both houses of the legislature must agree to send the bill forward to the executive branch for final approval before any proposed bill is signed into law, it does tend to convey the impression that any "good idea" can be transformed into "a Law" through the magical process of being debated by important-looking men in impressive-looking buildings with lots of steps and Greek columns, on top of high hills (and filled with long rows of impassive US Marines in dress blue uniforms, and statues of distinguished statesmen from previous generations), signed by the president using a fountain pen, and affixed with a shiny-looking seal with a ribbon. Nineteenth-century abolitionist, legal scholar and philosopher Lysander Spooner (1808 - 1887) would vehemently disagree that something becomes "a law" just because it goes through the above process and receives a president's signature and a fancy stamp. In fact, he published a treatise in 1850 entitled A Defence for Fugitive Slaves against the Acts of Congress of February 12, 1793 and September 18, 1850, in which he argued that an illegal law is no law at all, and confers no obligation on anyone to obey it, nor any authority to anyone desiring to enforce it. He begins his treatise with the complete copy of each of the two acts in question, both of which were considered "law" in 1850, compelling men or women who knew of a "fugitive slave" to help catch that "fugitive slave" or face penalties including fines and imprisonment (the term "slave" is put in quotation marks here because Spooner argues that no person can ever own another person, and that there actually is no such thing as a legal slave or the legal condition of slavery, all so-called "laws" which make one person the property of another being illegal and criminal). Those two so-called laws (the Fugitive Slave Act of 1793 and the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850) were both signed by the presidents of their day, George Washington in the first instance and Millard Fillmore in the second (they also bear the signatures of the respective Speakers of the House and Presidents of the Senate). But these signatures do not make them true laws, according to Spooner's arguments. Spooner demonstrates that holding anyone else as property is a crime, and that putting something on paper, stamping it with fancy seals, embellishing it with fancy legal language, and endorsing it with the signatures of people bearing impressive titles does not make it into law: it's still just a "sad little scrap of paper" in his eyes. He even goes so far as to say that men and women have the right to resist illegal laws, in what is undoubtedly among the most important sections of his argument, found on pages 27 and 28. There, he powerfully dismantles the counter-arguments that he anticipates from those who would argue that once something is "a law," it must be obeyed until it is repealed. If it were really true that an illegal or unconstitutional law must be obeyed until repealed, he reasons, then "there would therefore be no difference at all between a constitutional and an unconstitutional law, in respect to their binding force; and that would be equivalent to abolishing the constitution, and giving to the government unlimited power" (28). Those who would disagree with Lysander Spooner on this point are invited to participate in a mental experiment, in which they imagine that the president has signed a law saying that if you in any way hinder the search for an escaped slave, or in any way assist a person who has been designated a "slave" and who has run away and is hiding from the authorities, then you yourself are a criminal and can be subject to enormous fines and imprisonment. Note that this is not just a hypothetical scenario: the first and the thirteenth presidents of the United States each signed such a proposition into "law." Today, nobody reading this blog would likely argue that they would feel a moral duty to obey such a "law," or that they would have to actually support it until such time as they could eventually get it repealed through the same arduous process depicted in the Schoolhouse Rock video shown above. Nearly every man or woman would agree with Spooner that the institution of slavery and "laws" enforcing one person's ability to "own" another are not laws but rather outrageous crimes, and would reject the notion that writing such a "law" down on a piece of paper, stamping it with a pretty seal and adding some flowery signatures suddenly turns it into something that must be willingly and voluntarily obeyed until it can be debated and eventually repealed. Writing something on a piece of paper does not make it a law. But, if this is true, then what does make something a law? Lysander Spooner argued that the actions of men and women cannot actually make anything a law, but that there is already an immutable or unchangeable universal law which he called "Natural Law" or the "Science of Justice." He believed that human society should only enforce natural law, and not dream up additional or "artificial" laws, and that trying to add to or subtract from the natural law is as foolish as trying to add to or subtract from other natural laws, such as the law of gravity. He argued that men and women could voluntarily band together to help ensure compliance with this natural law among their group, but that they could not compel others to join that voluntary association. Even within such a voluntary association, he believed that people or groups could only rightly compel compliance with the natural law, which was generally extremely simple and basically entailed the command to "live honestly, hurt no one, and give everyone his or her due." In an 1882 publication entitled Natural Law; or The Science of Justice, Spooner set out to explain the concept of natural law. In it, he made a distinction between those things that everyone has a legal duty to either do or to refrain from doing, and which others can and must compel in others, and those things which everyone has a moral duty to do but which must be left up to each person's own judgment and which no one has the right or duty to compel. Below is a table based upon Spooner's 1882 text, generally following the order and wording of his argument: The left column (labeled "Legal Duty" and highlighted in yellow), in Spooner's view, constitutes those things which are part of the natural law, and can actually be the only things which anyone can rightfully use force to uphold. He says that everyone has a duty to refrain from injuring others, and that force may and must be used when someone sees someone else in the act of injuring someone else. Spooner further argues in that 1882 text that nearly everyone understands these natural law prohibitions and duties before they are even old enough to know that "three and three are six, or five and five ten" (9). The right column (labeled "Moral Duty" and highlighted in green), in Spooner's view, constitutes those things which we do have a moral duty to perform, but which no one else can compel us to do: we must judge the extent to which we are able to do those things, and how we wish to best accomplish them when we do decide to do them. Thus, in Spooner's view, any so-called law that goes beyond the legal duties in the left column (or, worse yet, directly contradicts and violates those legal duties, as did the Fugitive Slave Acts) is actually no law at all and it can and must be disobeyed as illegal and criminal, regardless of whether it was written down on paper using legal-sounding language and passed by men and women in fancy buildings and stamped with fancy stamps and inscribed with fancy signatures. At this point, the reader may be thinking that all of this is very nice, but what on earth does it have to do with the general subject matter covered in this blog? The answer is: everything. Because, as insightful thinkers such as Mark Passio have articulated, violations of natural law are so contrary to our innate understanding of right and wrong (remember that Spooner says we know it before we even know that 3 + 3 = 6) that artificial laws which violate natural law must always be dressed up with various symbols and word-formulas designed to convey legitimacy, and reinforced by systems of mind control by which men and women who should know that those violations are immoral can somehow be made to believe that those violations of natural law are instead right and good and deserving of support. Institutionalized violations of natural law are nearly always accompanied by powerful forms of illusion, or the creation of "false realities" that enable those violations to appear legitimate, and to get people to go along with them. Therefore, seeing through these false realities is of absolutely primary importance. This blog primarily examines false realities which can be seen operating all around us, including in the realm of conventional history as taught in all the institutions of academia and reinforced by the organs of the conventional media (see for example "Piercing the fog of deception that hides the contours of history" and also the two short videos entitled "The importance of challenging false narratives"). These false realities or false narratives which cause people to accept gross violations of natural law are operating today with just as much force as they were operating in Spooner's day -- perhaps even more so. False narratives assist in getting people to accept the premise that so-called "laws" permitting government surveillance of individual men and women at virtually any time and place are legitimate (see here and here). This is a violation of natural law in that it enables hidden enforcers and observers to treat individuals as criminals on the suspicion that they might do something to harm others, elevating some to the status of "prison guards" and demoting everyone else to the status of prisoners under constant suspicion and surveillance. False narratives convince people to accept the idea that men and women can and should be locked up and denied their freedom for possessing certain plants or mushrooms known to induce a state of ecstasy. This is a violation of natural law in that it uses force to prohibit behavior that in no way harms the person or property of another or infringes on another's rights. False narratives convince people to accept the idea that men and women representing the government and wearing military gear and driving military vehicles can point military weapons at people assembling in the streets to express themselves, or at people in their homes in a neighborhood where fugitives are supposedly hiding. These are clear violations of natural law in that such actions basically declare that force can be used against citizens whenever it is convenient for the government to say there is a need to do so, an idea which Spooner eloquently demolishes in pages 27 and 28 of his text against the Fugitive Slave Acts. In a passage labeled "Section IV" of his 1882 treatise on Natural Law, Spooner declares that the rights belonging to every human being by the unchangeable principle of justice "necessarily remain with him [or her] during life," and although these rights are "capable of being trampled upon" they are nevertheless "incapable of being blotted out, extinguished, annihilated, or separated from" each and every human being, and that there is no authority high enough to simply declare them null or void. False narratives have even apparently convinced some people that it is somehow excusable to cover up evidence of the potentially harmful effects of vaccines on certain children in order to support "herd immunity." All of the above examples, along with the many other violations of natural law currently taking place, are enabled and excused by a variety of false realities or false narratives, created and maintained in order to lend an air of legitimacy to these violations. So were many other horrendous violations of natural law which were enabled by false narratives and illusions throughout history, including the enslavement of Africans which Spooner argued against in the 1850s, to the destruction of Native American tribes in the western US after the end of the US Civil War and the seizure of their lands and their confinement to reservations or "agencies," to the seizure of the Hawaiian Islands and the Philippines in the years after that, and on and on right up to the present. All of the above examples were enabled by lies, illusions, and false narratives or false realities. For more on breaking through illusions and false realities, and creating new realities, see for example this previous post entitled "Jon Rappoport's talk on the trickster-god and creating reality." It is one of Lysander Spooner's singular contributions that he perceived and forcefully argued that a criminal "law" is no law at all, and that men and women have the right and the duty to treat it as such, and to inform others of their right to do the same. Putting something on paper doesn't make it a "law" -- even if it has been adorned with all the necessary stamps and signatures. As Spooner alludes in the writings linked above, the US Constitution as originally designed, and especially the Bill of Rights as originally conceived, were designed to safeguard natural-law rights in many ways, and to the extent that Schoolhouse Rock taught those principles to a new generation in the 1970s, it can be commended. Perhaps Spooner's arguments about an illegal law being no law at all could not really be expected to be squeezed into the "I'm Just a Bill" song. But Lysander Spooner's arguments deserve to be brought into the modern era, in much the same way that the creators of Schoolhouse Rock tried to speak to the younger generation of the 1970s using the language and imagery of the 1970s. Spooner's arguments on behalf of the individual's rights under natural law -- rights which could never be abridged by any authority -- and his arguments against the creation of arbitrary "laws" which everyone has to obey just because a legislature or a president gave them the title of a "law" deserve examination, consideration, and thoughtful debate today more than ever. And the false narratives supporting so-called laws which supposedly authorize some people to use violence against others, or to threaten violence against others, or to take away the freedom of others when those others have not done anything to harm anyone else's persons or property, must be shown to be the form of mind control that they are. No individuals or groups can give themselves the right to violate natural law and in doing so to infringe on anyone else's rights, simply by writing something down on a "sad little scrap of paper."

<urn:uuid:17474726-e53e-48c9-a980-028439f26526>

CC-MAIN-2018-13

http://www.starmythworld.com/mathisencorollary/2014/09/does-writing-something-on-piece-of.html

s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2018-13/segments/1521257647892.89/warc/CC-MAIN-20180322151300-20180322171300-00710.warc.gz

en

<urn:uuid:17474726-e53e-48c9-a980-028439f26526>_11

Spooner demonstrates that holding anyone else as property is a crime, and that putting something on paper, stamping it with fancy seals, embellishing it with fancy legal language, and endorsing it with the signatures of people bearing impressive titles does not make it into law: it's still just a "sad little scrap of paper" in his eyes.

"Whew! You sure gotta climb a lot of steps to get to the Capitol Building here in Washington. Well I wonder who that sad little scrap of paper is?" And with those words began one of my childhood favorite Schoolhouse Rock videos, which used to be on television back in the early 1970s when I wasn't really old enough to have any idea what exactly they were all about, or why they would sometimes show up in between episodes of Superfriends, Speed Racer, or Sigmund and the Sea Monsters. In I'm just a bill," we witness the progress by which "that sad little scrap of paper" receives a fancy seal and a president's signature and becomes a law ("He signed ya, Bill: Now you're a Law!"). Although the video does an admirable job depicting some of the checks and balances contained in the US Constitution, through which the members of both houses of the legislature must agree to send the bill forward to the executive branch for final approval before any proposed bill is signed into law, it does tend to convey the impression that any "good idea" can be transformed into "a Law" through the magical process of being debated by important-looking men in impressive-looking buildings with lots of steps and Greek columns, on top of high hills (and filled with long rows of impassive US Marines in dress blue uniforms, and statues of distinguished statesmen from previous generations), signed by the president using a fountain pen, and affixed with a shiny-looking seal with a ribbon. Nineteenth-century abolitionist, legal scholar and philosopher Lysander Spooner (1808 - 1887) would vehemently disagree that something becomes "a law" just because it goes through the above process and receives a president's signature and a fancy stamp. In fact, he published a treatise in 1850 entitled A Defence for Fugitive Slaves against the Acts of Congress of February 12, 1793 and September 18, 1850, in which he argued that an illegal law is no law at all, and confers no obligation on anyone to obey it, nor any authority to anyone desiring to enforce it. He begins his treatise with the complete copy of each of the two acts in question, both of which were considered "law" in 1850, compelling men or women who knew of a "fugitive slave" to help catch that "fugitive slave" or face penalties including fines and imprisonment (the term "slave" is put in quotation marks here because Spooner argues that no person can ever own another person, and that there actually is no such thing as a legal slave or the legal condition of slavery, all so-called "laws" which make one person the property of another being illegal and criminal). Those two so-called laws (the Fugitive Slave Act of 1793 and the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850) were both signed by the presidents of their day, George Washington in the first instance and Millard Fillmore in the second (they also bear the signatures of the respective Speakers of the House and Presidents of the Senate). But these signatures do not make them true laws, according to Spooner's arguments. Spooner demonstrates that holding anyone else as property is a crime, and that putting something on paper, stamping it with fancy seals, embellishing it with fancy legal language, and endorsing it with the signatures of people bearing impressive titles does not make it into law: it's still just a "sad little scrap of paper" in his eyes. He even goes so far as to say that men and women have the right to resist illegal laws, in what is undoubtedly among the most important sections of his argument, found on pages 27 and 28. There, he powerfully dismantles the counter-arguments that he anticipates from those who would argue that once something is "a law," it must be obeyed until it is repealed. If it were really true that an illegal or unconstitutional law must be obeyed until repealed, he reasons, then "there would therefore be no difference at all between a constitutional and an unconstitutional law, in respect to their binding force; and that would be equivalent to abolishing the constitution, and giving to the government unlimited power" (28). Those who would disagree with Lysander Spooner on this point are invited to participate in a mental experiment, in which they imagine that the president has signed a law saying that if you in any way hinder the search for an escaped slave, or in any way assist a person who has been designated a "slave" and who has run away and is hiding from the authorities, then you yourself are a criminal and can be subject to enormous fines and imprisonment. Note that this is not just a hypothetical scenario: the first and the thirteenth presidents of the United States each signed such a proposition into "law." Today, nobody reading this blog would likely argue that they would feel a moral duty to obey such a "law," or that they would have to actually support it until such time as they could eventually get it repealed through the same arduous process depicted in the Schoolhouse Rock video shown above. Nearly every man or woman would agree with Spooner that the institution of slavery and "laws" enforcing one person's ability to "own" another are not laws but rather outrageous crimes, and would reject the notion that writing such a "law" down on a piece of paper, stamping it with a pretty seal and adding some flowery signatures suddenly turns it into something that must be willingly and voluntarily obeyed until it can be debated and eventually repealed. Writing something on a piece of paper does not make it a law. But, if this is true, then what does make something a law? Lysander Spooner argued that the actions of men and women cannot actually make anything a law, but that there is already an immutable or unchangeable universal law which he called "Natural Law" or the "Science of Justice." He believed that human society should only enforce natural law, and not dream up additional or "artificial" laws, and that trying to add to or subtract from the natural law is as foolish as trying to add to or subtract from other natural laws, such as the law of gravity. He argued that men and women could voluntarily band together to help ensure compliance with this natural law among their group, but that they could not compel others to join that voluntary association. Even within such a voluntary association, he believed that people or groups could only rightly compel compliance with the natural law, which was generally extremely simple and basically entailed the command to "live honestly, hurt no one, and give everyone his or her due." In an 1882 publication entitled Natural Law; or The Science of Justice, Spooner set out to explain the concept of natural law. In it, he made a distinction between those things that everyone has a legal duty to either do or to refrain from doing, and which others can and must compel in others, and those things which everyone has a moral duty to do but which must be left up to each person's own judgment and which no one has the right or duty to compel. Below is a table based upon Spooner's 1882 text, generally following the order and wording of his argument: The left column (labeled "Legal Duty" and highlighted in yellow), in Spooner's view, constitutes those things which are part of the natural law, and can actually be the only things which anyone can rightfully use force to uphold. He says that everyone has a duty to refrain from injuring others, and that force may and must be used when someone sees someone else in the act of injuring someone else. Spooner further argues in that 1882 text that nearly everyone understands these natural law prohibitions and duties before they are even old enough to know that "three and three are six, or five and five ten" (9). The right column (labeled "Moral Duty" and highlighted in green), in Spooner's view, constitutes those things which we do have a moral duty to perform, but which no one else can compel us to do: we must judge the extent to which we are able to do those things, and how we wish to best accomplish them when we do decide to do them. Thus, in Spooner's view, any so-called law that goes beyond the legal duties in the left column (or, worse yet, directly contradicts and violates those legal duties, as did the Fugitive Slave Acts) is actually no law at all and it can and must be disobeyed as illegal and criminal, regardless of whether it was written down on paper using legal-sounding language and passed by men and women in fancy buildings and stamped with fancy stamps and inscribed with fancy signatures. At this point, the reader may be thinking that all of this is very nice, but what on earth does it have to do with the general subject matter covered in this blog? The answer is: everything. Because, as insightful thinkers such as Mark Passio have articulated, violations of natural law are so contrary to our innate understanding of right and wrong (remember that Spooner says we know it before we even know that 3 + 3 = 6) that artificial laws which violate natural law must always be dressed up with various symbols and word-formulas designed to convey legitimacy, and reinforced by systems of mind control by which men and women who should know that those violations are immoral can somehow be made to believe that those violations of natural law are instead right and good and deserving of support. Institutionalized violations of natural law are nearly always accompanied by powerful forms of illusion, or the creation of "false realities" that enable those violations to appear legitimate, and to get people to go along with them. Therefore, seeing through these false realities is of absolutely primary importance. This blog primarily examines false realities which can be seen operating all around us, including in the realm of conventional history as taught in all the institutions of academia and reinforced by the organs of the conventional media (see for example "Piercing the fog of deception that hides the contours of history" and also the two short videos entitled "The importance of challenging false narratives"). These false realities or false narratives which cause people to accept gross violations of natural law are operating today with just as much force as they were operating in Spooner's day -- perhaps even more so. False narratives assist in getting people to accept the premise that so-called "laws" permitting government surveillance of individual men and women at virtually any time and place are legitimate (see here and here). This is a violation of natural law in that it enables hidden enforcers and observers to treat individuals as criminals on the suspicion that they might do something to harm others, elevating some to the status of "prison guards" and demoting everyone else to the status of prisoners under constant suspicion and surveillance. False narratives convince people to accept the idea that men and women can and should be locked up and denied their freedom for possessing certain plants or mushrooms known to induce a state of ecstasy. This is a violation of natural law in that it uses force to prohibit behavior that in no way harms the person or property of another or infringes on another's rights. False narratives convince people to accept the idea that men and women representing the government and wearing military gear and driving military vehicles can point military weapons at people assembling in the streets to express themselves, or at people in their homes in a neighborhood where fugitives are supposedly hiding. These are clear violations of natural law in that such actions basically declare that force can be used against citizens whenever it is convenient for the government to say there is a need to do so, an idea which Spooner eloquently demolishes in pages 27 and 28 of his text against the Fugitive Slave Acts. In a passage labeled "Section IV" of his 1882 treatise on Natural Law, Spooner declares that the rights belonging to every human being by the unchangeable principle of justice "necessarily remain with him [or her] during life," and although these rights are "capable of being trampled upon" they are nevertheless "incapable of being blotted out, extinguished, annihilated, or separated from" each and every human being, and that there is no authority high enough to simply declare them null or void. False narratives have even apparently convinced some people that it is somehow excusable to cover up evidence of the potentially harmful effects of vaccines on certain children in order to support "herd immunity." All of the above examples, along with the many other violations of natural law currently taking place, are enabled and excused by a variety of false realities or false narratives, created and maintained in order to lend an air of legitimacy to these violations. So were many other horrendous violations of natural law which were enabled by false narratives and illusions throughout history, including the enslavement of Africans which Spooner argued against in the 1850s, to the destruction of Native American tribes in the western US after the end of the US Civil War and the seizure of their lands and their confinement to reservations or "agencies," to the seizure of the Hawaiian Islands and the Philippines in the years after that, and on and on right up to the present. All of the above examples were enabled by lies, illusions, and false narratives or false realities. For more on breaking through illusions and false realities, and creating new realities, see for example this previous post entitled "Jon Rappoport's talk on the trickster-god and creating reality." It is one of Lysander Spooner's singular contributions that he perceived and forcefully argued that a criminal "law" is no law at all, and that men and women have the right and the duty to treat it as such, and to inform others of their right to do the same. Putting something on paper doesn't make it a "law" -- even if it has been adorned with all the necessary stamps and signatures. As Spooner alludes in the writings linked above, the US Constitution as originally designed, and especially the Bill of Rights as originally conceived, were designed to safeguard natural-law rights in many ways, and to the extent that Schoolhouse Rock taught those principles to a new generation in the 1970s, it can be commended. Perhaps Spooner's arguments about an illegal law being no law at all could not really be expected to be squeezed into the "I'm Just a Bill" song. But Lysander Spooner's arguments deserve to be brought into the modern era, in much the same way that the creators of Schoolhouse Rock tried to speak to the younger generation of the 1970s using the language and imagery of the 1970s. Spooner's arguments on behalf of the individual's rights under natural law -- rights which could never be abridged by any authority -- and his arguments against the creation of arbitrary "laws" which everyone has to obey just because a legislature or a president gave them the title of a "law" deserve examination, consideration, and thoughtful debate today more than ever. And the false narratives supporting so-called laws which supposedly authorize some people to use violence against others, or to threaten violence against others, or to take away the freedom of others when those others have not done anything to harm anyone else's persons or property, must be shown to be the form of mind control that they are. No individuals or groups can give themselves the right to violate natural law and in doing so to infringe on anyone else's rights, simply by writing something down on a "sad little scrap of paper."

<urn:uuid:17474726-e53e-48c9-a980-028439f26526>

CC-MAIN-2018-13

http://www.starmythworld.com/mathisencorollary/2014/09/does-writing-something-on-piece-of.html

s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2018-13/segments/1521257647892.89/warc/CC-MAIN-20180322151300-20180322171300-00710.warc.gz

en

<urn:uuid:17474726-e53e-48c9-a980-028439f26526>_12

He even goes so far as to say that men and women have the right to resist illegal laws, in what is undoubtedly among the most important sections of his argument, found on pages 27 and 28.

"Whew! You sure gotta climb a lot of steps to get to the Capitol Building here in Washington. Well I wonder who that sad little scrap of paper is?" And with those words began one of my childhood favorite Schoolhouse Rock videos, which used to be on television back in the early 1970s when I wasn't really old enough to have any idea what exactly they were all about, or why they would sometimes show up in between episodes of Superfriends, Speed Racer, or Sigmund and the Sea Monsters. In I'm just a bill," we witness the progress by which "that sad little scrap of paper" receives a fancy seal and a president's signature and becomes a law ("He signed ya, Bill: Now you're a Law!"). Although the video does an admirable job depicting some of the checks and balances contained in the US Constitution, through which the members of both houses of the legislature must agree to send the bill forward to the executive branch for final approval before any proposed bill is signed into law, it does tend to convey the impression that any "good idea" can be transformed into "a Law" through the magical process of being debated by important-looking men in impressive-looking buildings with lots of steps and Greek columns, on top of high hills (and filled with long rows of impassive US Marines in dress blue uniforms, and statues of distinguished statesmen from previous generations), signed by the president using a fountain pen, and affixed with a shiny-looking seal with a ribbon. Nineteenth-century abolitionist, legal scholar and philosopher Lysander Spooner (1808 - 1887) would vehemently disagree that something becomes "a law" just because it goes through the above process and receives a president's signature and a fancy stamp. In fact, he published a treatise in 1850 entitled A Defence for Fugitive Slaves against the Acts of Congress of February 12, 1793 and September 18, 1850, in which he argued that an illegal law is no law at all, and confers no obligation on anyone to obey it, nor any authority to anyone desiring to enforce it. He begins his treatise with the complete copy of each of the two acts in question, both of which were considered "law" in 1850, compelling men or women who knew of a "fugitive slave" to help catch that "fugitive slave" or face penalties including fines and imprisonment (the term "slave" is put in quotation marks here because Spooner argues that no person can ever own another person, and that there actually is no such thing as a legal slave or the legal condition of slavery, all so-called "laws" which make one person the property of another being illegal and criminal). Those two so-called laws (the Fugitive Slave Act of 1793 and the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850) were both signed by the presidents of their day, George Washington in the first instance and Millard Fillmore in the second (they also bear the signatures of the respective Speakers of the House and Presidents of the Senate). But these signatures do not make them true laws, according to Spooner's arguments. Spooner demonstrates that holding anyone else as property is a crime, and that putting something on paper, stamping it with fancy seals, embellishing it with fancy legal language, and endorsing it with the signatures of people bearing impressive titles does not make it into law: it's still just a "sad little scrap of paper" in his eyes. He even goes so far as to say that men and women have the right to resist illegal laws, in what is undoubtedly among the most important sections of his argument, found on pages 27 and 28. There, he powerfully dismantles the counter-arguments that he anticipates from those who would argue that once something is "a law," it must be obeyed until it is repealed. If it were really true that an illegal or unconstitutional law must be obeyed until repealed, he reasons, then "there would therefore be no difference at all between a constitutional and an unconstitutional law, in respect to their binding force; and that would be equivalent to abolishing the constitution, and giving to the government unlimited power" (28). Those who would disagree with Lysander Spooner on this point are invited to participate in a mental experiment, in which they imagine that the president has signed a law saying that if you in any way hinder the search for an escaped slave, or in any way assist a person who has been designated a "slave" and who has run away and is hiding from the authorities, then you yourself are a criminal and can be subject to enormous fines and imprisonment. Note that this is not just a hypothetical scenario: the first and the thirteenth presidents of the United States each signed such a proposition into "law." Today, nobody reading this blog would likely argue that they would feel a moral duty to obey such a "law," or that they would have to actually support it until such time as they could eventually get it repealed through the same arduous process depicted in the Schoolhouse Rock video shown above. Nearly every man or woman would agree with Spooner that the institution of slavery and "laws" enforcing one person's ability to "own" another are not laws but rather outrageous crimes, and would reject the notion that writing such a "law" down on a piece of paper, stamping it with a pretty seal and adding some flowery signatures suddenly turns it into something that must be willingly and voluntarily obeyed until it can be debated and eventually repealed. Writing something on a piece of paper does not make it a law. But, if this is true, then what does make something a law? Lysander Spooner argued that the actions of men and women cannot actually make anything a law, but that there is already an immutable or unchangeable universal law which he called "Natural Law" or the "Science of Justice." He believed that human society should only enforce natural law, and not dream up additional or "artificial" laws, and that trying to add to or subtract from the natural law is as foolish as trying to add to or subtract from other natural laws, such as the law of gravity. He argued that men and women could voluntarily band together to help ensure compliance with this natural law among their group, but that they could not compel others to join that voluntary association. Even within such a voluntary association, he believed that people or groups could only rightly compel compliance with the natural law, which was generally extremely simple and basically entailed the command to "live honestly, hurt no one, and give everyone his or her due." In an 1882 publication entitled Natural Law; or The Science of Justice, Spooner set out to explain the concept of natural law. In it, he made a distinction between those things that everyone has a legal duty to either do or to refrain from doing, and which others can and must compel in others, and those things which everyone has a moral duty to do but which must be left up to each person's own judgment and which no one has the right or duty to compel. Below is a table based upon Spooner's 1882 text, generally following the order and wording of his argument: The left column (labeled "Legal Duty" and highlighted in yellow), in Spooner's view, constitutes those things which are part of the natural law, and can actually be the only things which anyone can rightfully use force to uphold. He says that everyone has a duty to refrain from injuring others, and that force may and must be used when someone sees someone else in the act of injuring someone else. Spooner further argues in that 1882 text that nearly everyone understands these natural law prohibitions and duties before they are even old enough to know that "three and three are six, or five and five ten" (9). The right column (labeled "Moral Duty" and highlighted in green), in Spooner's view, constitutes those things which we do have a moral duty to perform, but which no one else can compel us to do: we must judge the extent to which we are able to do those things, and how we wish to best accomplish them when we do decide to do them. Thus, in Spooner's view, any so-called law that goes beyond the legal duties in the left column (or, worse yet, directly contradicts and violates those legal duties, as did the Fugitive Slave Acts) is actually no law at all and it can and must be disobeyed as illegal and criminal, regardless of whether it was written down on paper using legal-sounding language and passed by men and women in fancy buildings and stamped with fancy stamps and inscribed with fancy signatures. At this point, the reader may be thinking that all of this is very nice, but what on earth does it have to do with the general subject matter covered in this blog? The answer is: everything. Because, as insightful thinkers such as Mark Passio have articulated, violations of natural law are so contrary to our innate understanding of right and wrong (remember that Spooner says we know it before we even know that 3 + 3 = 6) that artificial laws which violate natural law must always be dressed up with various symbols and word-formulas designed to convey legitimacy, and reinforced by systems of mind control by which men and women who should know that those violations are immoral can somehow be made to believe that those violations of natural law are instead right and good and deserving of support. Institutionalized violations of natural law are nearly always accompanied by powerful forms of illusion, or the creation of "false realities" that enable those violations to appear legitimate, and to get people to go along with them. Therefore, seeing through these false realities is of absolutely primary importance. This blog primarily examines false realities which can be seen operating all around us, including in the realm of conventional history as taught in all the institutions of academia and reinforced by the organs of the conventional media (see for example "Piercing the fog of deception that hides the contours of history" and also the two short videos entitled "The importance of challenging false narratives"). These false realities or false narratives which cause people to accept gross violations of natural law are operating today with just as much force as they were operating in Spooner's day -- perhaps even more so. False narratives assist in getting people to accept the premise that so-called "laws" permitting government surveillance of individual men and women at virtually any time and place are legitimate (see here and here). This is a violation of natural law in that it enables hidden enforcers and observers to treat individuals as criminals on the suspicion that they might do something to harm others, elevating some to the status of "prison guards" and demoting everyone else to the status of prisoners under constant suspicion and surveillance. False narratives convince people to accept the idea that men and women can and should be locked up and denied their freedom for possessing certain plants or mushrooms known to induce a state of ecstasy. This is a violation of natural law in that it uses force to prohibit behavior that in no way harms the person or property of another or infringes on another's rights. False narratives convince people to accept the idea that men and women representing the government and wearing military gear and driving military vehicles can point military weapons at people assembling in the streets to express themselves, or at people in their homes in a neighborhood where fugitives are supposedly hiding. These are clear violations of natural law in that such actions basically declare that force can be used against citizens whenever it is convenient for the government to say there is a need to do so, an idea which Spooner eloquently demolishes in pages 27 and 28 of his text against the Fugitive Slave Acts. In a passage labeled "Section IV" of his 1882 treatise on Natural Law, Spooner declares that the rights belonging to every human being by the unchangeable principle of justice "necessarily remain with him [or her] during life," and although these rights are "capable of being trampled upon" they are nevertheless "incapable of being blotted out, extinguished, annihilated, or separated from" each and every human being, and that there is no authority high enough to simply declare them null or void. False narratives have even apparently convinced some people that it is somehow excusable to cover up evidence of the potentially harmful effects of vaccines on certain children in order to support "herd immunity." All of the above examples, along with the many other violations of natural law currently taking place, are enabled and excused by a variety of false realities or false narratives, created and maintained in order to lend an air of legitimacy to these violations. So were many other horrendous violations of natural law which were enabled by false narratives and illusions throughout history, including the enslavement of Africans which Spooner argued against in the 1850s, to the destruction of Native American tribes in the western US after the end of the US Civil War and the seizure of their lands and their confinement to reservations or "agencies," to the seizure of the Hawaiian Islands and the Philippines in the years after that, and on and on right up to the present. All of the above examples were enabled by lies, illusions, and false narratives or false realities. For more on breaking through illusions and false realities, and creating new realities, see for example this previous post entitled "Jon Rappoport's talk on the trickster-god and creating reality." It is one of Lysander Spooner's singular contributions that he perceived and forcefully argued that a criminal "law" is no law at all, and that men and women have the right and the duty to treat it as such, and to inform others of their right to do the same. Putting something on paper doesn't make it a "law" -- even if it has been adorned with all the necessary stamps and signatures. As Spooner alludes in the writings linked above, the US Constitution as originally designed, and especially the Bill of Rights as originally conceived, were designed to safeguard natural-law rights in many ways, and to the extent that Schoolhouse Rock taught those principles to a new generation in the 1970s, it can be commended. Perhaps Spooner's arguments about an illegal law being no law at all could not really be expected to be squeezed into the "I'm Just a Bill" song. But Lysander Spooner's arguments deserve to be brought into the modern era, in much the same way that the creators of Schoolhouse Rock tried to speak to the younger generation of the 1970s using the language and imagery of the 1970s. Spooner's arguments on behalf of the individual's rights under natural law -- rights which could never be abridged by any authority -- and his arguments against the creation of arbitrary "laws" which everyone has to obey just because a legislature or a president gave them the title of a "law" deserve examination, consideration, and thoughtful debate today more than ever. And the false narratives supporting so-called laws which supposedly authorize some people to use violence against others, or to threaten violence against others, or to take away the freedom of others when those others have not done anything to harm anyone else's persons or property, must be shown to be the form of mind control that they are. No individuals or groups can give themselves the right to violate natural law and in doing so to infringe on anyone else's rights, simply by writing something down on a "sad little scrap of paper."

<urn:uuid:17474726-e53e-48c9-a980-028439f26526>

CC-MAIN-2018-13

http://www.starmythworld.com/mathisencorollary/2014/09/does-writing-something-on-piece-of.html

s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2018-13/segments/1521257647892.89/warc/CC-MAIN-20180322151300-20180322171300-00710.warc.gz

en

<urn:uuid:17474726-e53e-48c9-a980-028439f26526>_13

There, he powerfully dismantles the counter-arguments that he anticipates from those who would argue that once something is "a law," it must be obeyed until it is repealed.

"Whew! You sure gotta climb a lot of steps to get to the Capitol Building here in Washington. Well I wonder who that sad little scrap of paper is?" And with those words began one of my childhood favorite Schoolhouse Rock videos, which used to be on television back in the early 1970s when I wasn't really old enough to have any idea what exactly they were all about, or why they would sometimes show up in between episodes of Superfriends, Speed Racer, or Sigmund and the Sea Monsters. In I'm just a bill," we witness the progress by which "that sad little scrap of paper" receives a fancy seal and a president's signature and becomes a law ("He signed ya, Bill: Now you're a Law!"). Although the video does an admirable job depicting some of the checks and balances contained in the US Constitution, through which the members of both houses of the legislature must agree to send the bill forward to the executive branch for final approval before any proposed bill is signed into law, it does tend to convey the impression that any "good idea" can be transformed into "a Law" through the magical process of being debated by important-looking men in impressive-looking buildings with lots of steps and Greek columns, on top of high hills (and filled with long rows of impassive US Marines in dress blue uniforms, and statues of distinguished statesmen from previous generations), signed by the president using a fountain pen, and affixed with a shiny-looking seal with a ribbon. Nineteenth-century abolitionist, legal scholar and philosopher Lysander Spooner (1808 - 1887) would vehemently disagree that something becomes "a law" just because it goes through the above process and receives a president's signature and a fancy stamp. In fact, he published a treatise in 1850 entitled A Defence for Fugitive Slaves against the Acts of Congress of February 12, 1793 and September 18, 1850, in which he argued that an illegal law is no law at all, and confers no obligation on anyone to obey it, nor any authority to anyone desiring to enforce it. He begins his treatise with the complete copy of each of the two acts in question, both of which were considered "law" in 1850, compelling men or women who knew of a "fugitive slave" to help catch that "fugitive slave" or face penalties including fines and imprisonment (the term "slave" is put in quotation marks here because Spooner argues that no person can ever own another person, and that there actually is no such thing as a legal slave or the legal condition of slavery, all so-called "laws" which make one person the property of another being illegal and criminal). Those two so-called laws (the Fugitive Slave Act of 1793 and the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850) were both signed by the presidents of their day, George Washington in the first instance and Millard Fillmore in the second (they also bear the signatures of the respective Speakers of the House and Presidents of the Senate). But these signatures do not make them true laws, according to Spooner's arguments. Spooner demonstrates that holding anyone else as property is a crime, and that putting something on paper, stamping it with fancy seals, embellishing it with fancy legal language, and endorsing it with the signatures of people bearing impressive titles does not make it into law: it's still just a "sad little scrap of paper" in his eyes. He even goes so far as to say that men and women have the right to resist illegal laws, in what is undoubtedly among the most important sections of his argument, found on pages 27 and 28. There, he powerfully dismantles the counter-arguments that he anticipates from those who would argue that once something is "a law," it must be obeyed until it is repealed. If it were really true that an illegal or unconstitutional law must be obeyed until repealed, he reasons, then "there would therefore be no difference at all between a constitutional and an unconstitutional law, in respect to their binding force; and that would be equivalent to abolishing the constitution, and giving to the government unlimited power" (28). Those who would disagree with Lysander Spooner on this point are invited to participate in a mental experiment, in which they imagine that the president has signed a law saying that if you in any way hinder the search for an escaped slave, or in any way assist a person who has been designated a "slave" and who has run away and is hiding from the authorities, then you yourself are a criminal and can be subject to enormous fines and imprisonment. Note that this is not just a hypothetical scenario: the first and the thirteenth presidents of the United States each signed such a proposition into "law." Today, nobody reading this blog would likely argue that they would feel a moral duty to obey such a "law," or that they would have to actually support it until such time as they could eventually get it repealed through the same arduous process depicted in the Schoolhouse Rock video shown above. Nearly every man or woman would agree with Spooner that the institution of slavery and "laws" enforcing one person's ability to "own" another are not laws but rather outrageous crimes, and would reject the notion that writing such a "law" down on a piece of paper, stamping it with a pretty seal and adding some flowery signatures suddenly turns it into something that must be willingly and voluntarily obeyed until it can be debated and eventually repealed. Writing something on a piece of paper does not make it a law. But, if this is true, then what does make something a law? Lysander Spooner argued that the actions of men and women cannot actually make anything a law, but that there is already an immutable or unchangeable universal law which he called "Natural Law" or the "Science of Justice." He believed that human society should only enforce natural law, and not dream up additional or "artificial" laws, and that trying to add to or subtract from the natural law is as foolish as trying to add to or subtract from other natural laws, such as the law of gravity. He argued that men and women could voluntarily band together to help ensure compliance with this natural law among their group, but that they could not compel others to join that voluntary association. Even within such a voluntary association, he believed that people or groups could only rightly compel compliance with the natural law, which was generally extremely simple and basically entailed the command to "live honestly, hurt no one, and give everyone his or her due." In an 1882 publication entitled Natural Law; or The Science of Justice, Spooner set out to explain the concept of natural law. In it, he made a distinction between those things that everyone has a legal duty to either do or to refrain from doing, and which others can and must compel in others, and those things which everyone has a moral duty to do but which must be left up to each person's own judgment and which no one has the right or duty to compel. Below is a table based upon Spooner's 1882 text, generally following the order and wording of his argument: The left column (labeled "Legal Duty" and highlighted in yellow), in Spooner's view, constitutes those things which are part of the natural law, and can actually be the only things which anyone can rightfully use force to uphold. He says that everyone has a duty to refrain from injuring others, and that force may and must be used when someone sees someone else in the act of injuring someone else. Spooner further argues in that 1882 text that nearly everyone understands these natural law prohibitions and duties before they are even old enough to know that "three and three are six, or five and five ten" (9). The right column (labeled "Moral Duty" and highlighted in green), in Spooner's view, constitutes those things which we do have a moral duty to perform, but which no one else can compel us to do: we must judge the extent to which we are able to do those things, and how we wish to best accomplish them when we do decide to do them. Thus, in Spooner's view, any so-called law that goes beyond the legal duties in the left column (or, worse yet, directly contradicts and violates those legal duties, as did the Fugitive Slave Acts) is actually no law at all and it can and must be disobeyed as illegal and criminal, regardless of whether it was written down on paper using legal-sounding language and passed by men and women in fancy buildings and stamped with fancy stamps and inscribed with fancy signatures. At this point, the reader may be thinking that all of this is very nice, but what on earth does it have to do with the general subject matter covered in this blog? The answer is: everything. Because, as insightful thinkers such as Mark Passio have articulated, violations of natural law are so contrary to our innate understanding of right and wrong (remember that Spooner says we know it before we even know that 3 + 3 = 6) that artificial laws which violate natural law must always be dressed up with various symbols and word-formulas designed to convey legitimacy, and reinforced by systems of mind control by which men and women who should know that those violations are immoral can somehow be made to believe that those violations of natural law are instead right and good and deserving of support. Institutionalized violations of natural law are nearly always accompanied by powerful forms of illusion, or the creation of "false realities" that enable those violations to appear legitimate, and to get people to go along with them. Therefore, seeing through these false realities is of absolutely primary importance. This blog primarily examines false realities which can be seen operating all around us, including in the realm of conventional history as taught in all the institutions of academia and reinforced by the organs of the conventional media (see for example "Piercing the fog of deception that hides the contours of history" and also the two short videos entitled "The importance of challenging false narratives"). These false realities or false narratives which cause people to accept gross violations of natural law are operating today with just as much force as they were operating in Spooner's day -- perhaps even more so. False narratives assist in getting people to accept the premise that so-called "laws" permitting government surveillance of individual men and women at virtually any time and place are legitimate (see here and here). This is a violation of natural law in that it enables hidden enforcers and observers to treat individuals as criminals on the suspicion that they might do something to harm others, elevating some to the status of "prison guards" and demoting everyone else to the status of prisoners under constant suspicion and surveillance. False narratives convince people to accept the idea that men and women can and should be locked up and denied their freedom for possessing certain plants or mushrooms known to induce a state of ecstasy. This is a violation of natural law in that it uses force to prohibit behavior that in no way harms the person or property of another or infringes on another's rights. False narratives convince people to accept the idea that men and women representing the government and wearing military gear and driving military vehicles can point military weapons at people assembling in the streets to express themselves, or at people in their homes in a neighborhood where fugitives are supposedly hiding. These are clear violations of natural law in that such actions basically declare that force can be used against citizens whenever it is convenient for the government to say there is a need to do so, an idea which Spooner eloquently demolishes in pages 27 and 28 of his text against the Fugitive Slave Acts. In a passage labeled "Section IV" of his 1882 treatise on Natural Law, Spooner declares that the rights belonging to every human being by the unchangeable principle of justice "necessarily remain with him [or her] during life," and although these rights are "capable of being trampled upon" they are nevertheless "incapable of being blotted out, extinguished, annihilated, or separated from" each and every human being, and that there is no authority high enough to simply declare them null or void. False narratives have even apparently convinced some people that it is somehow excusable to cover up evidence of the potentially harmful effects of vaccines on certain children in order to support "herd immunity." All of the above examples, along with the many other violations of natural law currently taking place, are enabled and excused by a variety of false realities or false narratives, created and maintained in order to lend an air of legitimacy to these violations. So were many other horrendous violations of natural law which were enabled by false narratives and illusions throughout history, including the enslavement of Africans which Spooner argued against in the 1850s, to the destruction of Native American tribes in the western US after the end of the US Civil War and the seizure of their lands and their confinement to reservations or "agencies," to the seizure of the Hawaiian Islands and the Philippines in the years after that, and on and on right up to the present. All of the above examples were enabled by lies, illusions, and false narratives or false realities. For more on breaking through illusions and false realities, and creating new realities, see for example this previous post entitled "Jon Rappoport's talk on the trickster-god and creating reality." It is one of Lysander Spooner's singular contributions that he perceived and forcefully argued that a criminal "law" is no law at all, and that men and women have the right and the duty to treat it as such, and to inform others of their right to do the same. Putting something on paper doesn't make it a "law" -- even if it has been adorned with all the necessary stamps and signatures. As Spooner alludes in the writings linked above, the US Constitution as originally designed, and especially the Bill of Rights as originally conceived, were designed to safeguard natural-law rights in many ways, and to the extent that Schoolhouse Rock taught those principles to a new generation in the 1970s, it can be commended. Perhaps Spooner's arguments about an illegal law being no law at all could not really be expected to be squeezed into the "I'm Just a Bill" song. But Lysander Spooner's arguments deserve to be brought into the modern era, in much the same way that the creators of Schoolhouse Rock tried to speak to the younger generation of the 1970s using the language and imagery of the 1970s. Spooner's arguments on behalf of the individual's rights under natural law -- rights which could never be abridged by any authority -- and his arguments against the creation of arbitrary "laws" which everyone has to obey just because a legislature or a president gave them the title of a "law" deserve examination, consideration, and thoughtful debate today more than ever. And the false narratives supporting so-called laws which supposedly authorize some people to use violence against others, or to threaten violence against others, or to take away the freedom of others when those others have not done anything to harm anyone else's persons or property, must be shown to be the form of mind control that they are. No individuals or groups can give themselves the right to violate natural law and in doing so to infringe on anyone else's rights, simply by writing something down on a "sad little scrap of paper."

<urn:uuid:17474726-e53e-48c9-a980-028439f26526>

CC-MAIN-2018-13

http://www.starmythworld.com/mathisencorollary/2014/09/does-writing-something-on-piece-of.html

s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2018-13/segments/1521257647892.89/warc/CC-MAIN-20180322151300-20180322171300-00710.warc.gz

en

<urn:uuid:17474726-e53e-48c9-a980-028439f26526>_14

If it were really true that an illegal or unconstitutional law must be obeyed until repealed, he reasons, then "there would therefore be no difference at all between a constitutional and an unconstitutional law, in respect to their binding force; and that would be equivalent to abolishing the constitution, and giving to the government unlimited power" (28).

"Whew! You sure gotta climb a lot of steps to get to the Capitol Building here in Washington. Well I wonder who that sad little scrap of paper is?" And with those words began one of my childhood favorite Schoolhouse Rock videos, which used to be on television back in the early 1970s when I wasn't really old enough to have any idea what exactly they were all about, or why they would sometimes show up in between episodes of Superfriends, Speed Racer, or Sigmund and the Sea Monsters. In I'm just a bill," we witness the progress by which "that sad little scrap of paper" receives a fancy seal and a president's signature and becomes a law ("He signed ya, Bill: Now you're a Law!"). Although the video does an admirable job depicting some of the checks and balances contained in the US Constitution, through which the members of both houses of the legislature must agree to send the bill forward to the executive branch for final approval before any proposed bill is signed into law, it does tend to convey the impression that any "good idea" can be transformed into "a Law" through the magical process of being debated by important-looking men in impressive-looking buildings with lots of steps and Greek columns, on top of high hills (and filled with long rows of impassive US Marines in dress blue uniforms, and statues of distinguished statesmen from previous generations), signed by the president using a fountain pen, and affixed with a shiny-looking seal with a ribbon. Nineteenth-century abolitionist, legal scholar and philosopher Lysander Spooner (1808 - 1887) would vehemently disagree that something becomes "a law" just because it goes through the above process and receives a president's signature and a fancy stamp. In fact, he published a treatise in 1850 entitled A Defence for Fugitive Slaves against the Acts of Congress of February 12, 1793 and September 18, 1850, in which he argued that an illegal law is no law at all, and confers no obligation on anyone to obey it, nor any authority to anyone desiring to enforce it. He begins his treatise with the complete copy of each of the two acts in question, both of which were considered "law" in 1850, compelling men or women who knew of a "fugitive slave" to help catch that "fugitive slave" or face penalties including fines and imprisonment (the term "slave" is put in quotation marks here because Spooner argues that no person can ever own another person, and that there actually is no such thing as a legal slave or the legal condition of slavery, all so-called "laws" which make one person the property of another being illegal and criminal). Those two so-called laws (the Fugitive Slave Act of 1793 and the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850) were both signed by the presidents of their day, George Washington in the first instance and Millard Fillmore in the second (they also bear the signatures of the respective Speakers of the House and Presidents of the Senate). But these signatures do not make them true laws, according to Spooner's arguments. Spooner demonstrates that holding anyone else as property is a crime, and that putting something on paper, stamping it with fancy seals, embellishing it with fancy legal language, and endorsing it with the signatures of people bearing impressive titles does not make it into law: it's still just a "sad little scrap of paper" in his eyes. He even goes so far as to say that men and women have the right to resist illegal laws, in what is undoubtedly among the most important sections of his argument, found on pages 27 and 28. There, he powerfully dismantles the counter-arguments that he anticipates from those who would argue that once something is "a law," it must be obeyed until it is repealed. If it were really true that an illegal or unconstitutional law must be obeyed until repealed, he reasons, then "there would therefore be no difference at all between a constitutional and an unconstitutional law, in respect to their binding force; and that would be equivalent to abolishing the constitution, and giving to the government unlimited power" (28). Those who would disagree with Lysander Spooner on this point are invited to participate in a mental experiment, in which they imagine that the president has signed a law saying that if you in any way hinder the search for an escaped slave, or in any way assist a person who has been designated a "slave" and who has run away and is hiding from the authorities, then you yourself are a criminal and can be subject to enormous fines and imprisonment. Note that this is not just a hypothetical scenario: the first and the thirteenth presidents of the United States each signed such a proposition into "law." Today, nobody reading this blog would likely argue that they would feel a moral duty to obey such a "law," or that they would have to actually support it until such time as they could eventually get it repealed through the same arduous process depicted in the Schoolhouse Rock video shown above. Nearly every man or woman would agree with Spooner that the institution of slavery and "laws" enforcing one person's ability to "own" another are not laws but rather outrageous crimes, and would reject the notion that writing such a "law" down on a piece of paper, stamping it with a pretty seal and adding some flowery signatures suddenly turns it into something that must be willingly and voluntarily obeyed until it can be debated and eventually repealed. Writing something on a piece of paper does not make it a law. But, if this is true, then what does make something a law? Lysander Spooner argued that the actions of men and women cannot actually make anything a law, but that there is already an immutable or unchangeable universal law which he called "Natural Law" or the "Science of Justice." He believed that human society should only enforce natural law, and not dream up additional or "artificial" laws, and that trying to add to or subtract from the natural law is as foolish as trying to add to or subtract from other natural laws, such as the law of gravity. He argued that men and women could voluntarily band together to help ensure compliance with this natural law among their group, but that they could not compel others to join that voluntary association. Even within such a voluntary association, he believed that people or groups could only rightly compel compliance with the natural law, which was generally extremely simple and basically entailed the command to "live honestly, hurt no one, and give everyone his or her due." In an 1882 publication entitled Natural Law; or The Science of Justice, Spooner set out to explain the concept of natural law. In it, he made a distinction between those things that everyone has a legal duty to either do or to refrain from doing, and which others can and must compel in others, and those things which everyone has a moral duty to do but which must be left up to each person's own judgment and which no one has the right or duty to compel. Below is a table based upon Spooner's 1882 text, generally following the order and wording of his argument: The left column (labeled "Legal Duty" and highlighted in yellow), in Spooner's view, constitutes those things which are part of the natural law, and can actually be the only things which anyone can rightfully use force to uphold. He says that everyone has a duty to refrain from injuring others, and that force may and must be used when someone sees someone else in the act of injuring someone else. Spooner further argues in that 1882 text that nearly everyone understands these natural law prohibitions and duties before they are even old enough to know that "three and three are six, or five and five ten" (9). The right column (labeled "Moral Duty" and highlighted in green), in Spooner's view, constitutes those things which we do have a moral duty to perform, but which no one else can compel us to do: we must judge the extent to which we are able to do those things, and how we wish to best accomplish them when we do decide to do them. Thus, in Spooner's view, any so-called law that goes beyond the legal duties in the left column (or, worse yet, directly contradicts and violates those legal duties, as did the Fugitive Slave Acts) is actually no law at all and it can and must be disobeyed as illegal and criminal, regardless of whether it was written down on paper using legal-sounding language and passed by men and women in fancy buildings and stamped with fancy stamps and inscribed with fancy signatures. At this point, the reader may be thinking that all of this is very nice, but what on earth does it have to do with the general subject matter covered in this blog? The answer is: everything. Because, as insightful thinkers such as Mark Passio have articulated, violations of natural law are so contrary to our innate understanding of right and wrong (remember that Spooner says we know it before we even know that 3 + 3 = 6) that artificial laws which violate natural law must always be dressed up with various symbols and word-formulas designed to convey legitimacy, and reinforced by systems of mind control by which men and women who should know that those violations are immoral can somehow be made to believe that those violations of natural law are instead right and good and deserving of support. Institutionalized violations of natural law are nearly always accompanied by powerful forms of illusion, or the creation of "false realities" that enable those violations to appear legitimate, and to get people to go along with them. Therefore, seeing through these false realities is of absolutely primary importance. This blog primarily examines false realities which can be seen operating all around us, including in the realm of conventional history as taught in all the institutions of academia and reinforced by the organs of the conventional media (see for example "Piercing the fog of deception that hides the contours of history" and also the two short videos entitled "The importance of challenging false narratives"). These false realities or false narratives which cause people to accept gross violations of natural law are operating today with just as much force as they were operating in Spooner's day -- perhaps even more so. False narratives assist in getting people to accept the premise that so-called "laws" permitting government surveillance of individual men and women at virtually any time and place are legitimate (see here and here). This is a violation of natural law in that it enables hidden enforcers and observers to treat individuals as criminals on the suspicion that they might do something to harm others, elevating some to the status of "prison guards" and demoting everyone else to the status of prisoners under constant suspicion and surveillance. False narratives convince people to accept the idea that men and women can and should be locked up and denied their freedom for possessing certain plants or mushrooms known to induce a state of ecstasy. This is a violation of natural law in that it uses force to prohibit behavior that in no way harms the person or property of another or infringes on another's rights. False narratives convince people to accept the idea that men and women representing the government and wearing military gear and driving military vehicles can point military weapons at people assembling in the streets to express themselves, or at people in their homes in a neighborhood where fugitives are supposedly hiding. These are clear violations of natural law in that such actions basically declare that force can be used against citizens whenever it is convenient for the government to say there is a need to do so, an idea which Spooner eloquently demolishes in pages 27 and 28 of his text against the Fugitive Slave Acts. In a passage labeled "Section IV" of his 1882 treatise on Natural Law, Spooner declares that the rights belonging to every human being by the unchangeable principle of justice "necessarily remain with him [or her] during life," and although these rights are "capable of being trampled upon" they are nevertheless "incapable of being blotted out, extinguished, annihilated, or separated from" each and every human being, and that there is no authority high enough to simply declare them null or void. False narratives have even apparently convinced some people that it is somehow excusable to cover up evidence of the potentially harmful effects of vaccines on certain children in order to support "herd immunity." All of the above examples, along with the many other violations of natural law currently taking place, are enabled and excused by a variety of false realities or false narratives, created and maintained in order to lend an air of legitimacy to these violations. So were many other horrendous violations of natural law which were enabled by false narratives and illusions throughout history, including the enslavement of Africans which Spooner argued against in the 1850s, to the destruction of Native American tribes in the western US after the end of the US Civil War and the seizure of their lands and their confinement to reservations or "agencies," to the seizure of the Hawaiian Islands and the Philippines in the years after that, and on and on right up to the present. All of the above examples were enabled by lies, illusions, and false narratives or false realities. For more on breaking through illusions and false realities, and creating new realities, see for example this previous post entitled "Jon Rappoport's talk on the trickster-god and creating reality." It is one of Lysander Spooner's singular contributions that he perceived and forcefully argued that a criminal "law" is no law at all, and that men and women have the right and the duty to treat it as such, and to inform others of their right to do the same. Putting something on paper doesn't make it a "law" -- even if it has been adorned with all the necessary stamps and signatures. As Spooner alludes in the writings linked above, the US Constitution as originally designed, and especially the Bill of Rights as originally conceived, were designed to safeguard natural-law rights in many ways, and to the extent that Schoolhouse Rock taught those principles to a new generation in the 1970s, it can be commended. Perhaps Spooner's arguments about an illegal law being no law at all could not really be expected to be squeezed into the "I'm Just a Bill" song. But Lysander Spooner's arguments deserve to be brought into the modern era, in much the same way that the creators of Schoolhouse Rock tried to speak to the younger generation of the 1970s using the language and imagery of the 1970s. Spooner's arguments on behalf of the individual's rights under natural law -- rights which could never be abridged by any authority -- and his arguments against the creation of arbitrary "laws" which everyone has to obey just because a legislature or a president gave them the title of a "law" deserve examination, consideration, and thoughtful debate today more than ever. And the false narratives supporting so-called laws which supposedly authorize some people to use violence against others, or to threaten violence against others, or to take away the freedom of others when those others have not done anything to harm anyone else's persons or property, must be shown to be the form of mind control that they are. No individuals or groups can give themselves the right to violate natural law and in doing so to infringe on anyone else's rights, simply by writing something down on a "sad little scrap of paper."

<urn:uuid:17474726-e53e-48c9-a980-028439f26526>

CC-MAIN-2018-13

http://www.starmythworld.com/mathisencorollary/2014/09/does-writing-something-on-piece-of.html

s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2018-13/segments/1521257647892.89/warc/CC-MAIN-20180322151300-20180322171300-00710.warc.gz

en

<urn:uuid:17474726-e53e-48c9-a980-028439f26526>_15

Those who would disagree with Lysander Spooner on this point are invited to participate in a mental experiment, in which they imagine that the president has signed a law saying that if you in any way hinder the search for an escaped slave, or in any way assist a person who has been designated a "slave" and who has run away and is hiding from the authorities, then you yourself are a criminal and can be subject to enormous fines and imprisonment.

"Whew! You sure gotta climb a lot of steps to get to the Capitol Building here in Washington. Well I wonder who that sad little scrap of paper is?" And with those words began one of my childhood favorite Schoolhouse Rock videos, which used to be on television back in the early 1970s when I wasn't really old enough to have any idea what exactly they were all about, or why they would sometimes show up in between episodes of Superfriends, Speed Racer, or Sigmund and the Sea Monsters. In I'm just a bill," we witness the progress by which "that sad little scrap of paper" receives a fancy seal and a president's signature and becomes a law ("He signed ya, Bill: Now you're a Law!"). Although the video does an admirable job depicting some of the checks and balances contained in the US Constitution, through which the members of both houses of the legislature must agree to send the bill forward to the executive branch for final approval before any proposed bill is signed into law, it does tend to convey the impression that any "good idea" can be transformed into "a Law" through the magical process of being debated by important-looking men in impressive-looking buildings with lots of steps and Greek columns, on top of high hills (and filled with long rows of impassive US Marines in dress blue uniforms, and statues of distinguished statesmen from previous generations), signed by the president using a fountain pen, and affixed with a shiny-looking seal with a ribbon. Nineteenth-century abolitionist, legal scholar and philosopher Lysander Spooner (1808 - 1887) would vehemently disagree that something becomes "a law" just because it goes through the above process and receives a president's signature and a fancy stamp. In fact, he published a treatise in 1850 entitled A Defence for Fugitive Slaves against the Acts of Congress of February 12, 1793 and September 18, 1850, in which he argued that an illegal law is no law at all, and confers no obligation on anyone to obey it, nor any authority to anyone desiring to enforce it. He begins his treatise with the complete copy of each of the two acts in question, both of which were considered "law" in 1850, compelling men or women who knew of a "fugitive slave" to help catch that "fugitive slave" or face penalties including fines and imprisonment (the term "slave" is put in quotation marks here because Spooner argues that no person can ever own another person, and that there actually is no such thing as a legal slave or the legal condition of slavery, all so-called "laws" which make one person the property of another being illegal and criminal). Those two so-called laws (the Fugitive Slave Act of 1793 and the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850) were both signed by the presidents of their day, George Washington in the first instance and Millard Fillmore in the second (they also bear the signatures of the respective Speakers of the House and Presidents of the Senate). But these signatures do not make them true laws, according to Spooner's arguments. Spooner demonstrates that holding anyone else as property is a crime, and that putting something on paper, stamping it with fancy seals, embellishing it with fancy legal language, and endorsing it with the signatures of people bearing impressive titles does not make it into law: it's still just a "sad little scrap of paper" in his eyes. He even goes so far as to say that men and women have the right to resist illegal laws, in what is undoubtedly among the most important sections of his argument, found on pages 27 and 28. There, he powerfully dismantles the counter-arguments that he anticipates from those who would argue that once something is "a law," it must be obeyed until it is repealed. If it were really true that an illegal or unconstitutional law must be obeyed until repealed, he reasons, then "there would therefore be no difference at all between a constitutional and an unconstitutional law, in respect to their binding force; and that would be equivalent to abolishing the constitution, and giving to the government unlimited power" (28). Those who would disagree with Lysander Spooner on this point are invited to participate in a mental experiment, in which they imagine that the president has signed a law saying that if you in any way hinder the search for an escaped slave, or in any way assist a person who has been designated a "slave" and who has run away and is hiding from the authorities, then you yourself are a criminal and can be subject to enormous fines and imprisonment. Note that this is not just a hypothetical scenario: the first and the thirteenth presidents of the United States each signed such a proposition into "law." Today, nobody reading this blog would likely argue that they would feel a moral duty to obey such a "law," or that they would have to actually support it until such time as they could eventually get it repealed through the same arduous process depicted in the Schoolhouse Rock video shown above. Nearly every man or woman would agree with Spooner that the institution of slavery and "laws" enforcing one person's ability to "own" another are not laws but rather outrageous crimes, and would reject the notion that writing such a "law" down on a piece of paper, stamping it with a pretty seal and adding some flowery signatures suddenly turns it into something that must be willingly and voluntarily obeyed until it can be debated and eventually repealed. Writing something on a piece of paper does not make it a law. But, if this is true, then what does make something a law? Lysander Spooner argued that the actions of men and women cannot actually make anything a law, but that there is already an immutable or unchangeable universal law which he called "Natural Law" or the "Science of Justice." He believed that human society should only enforce natural law, and not dream up additional or "artificial" laws, and that trying to add to or subtract from the natural law is as foolish as trying to add to or subtract from other natural laws, such as the law of gravity. He argued that men and women could voluntarily band together to help ensure compliance with this natural law among their group, but that they could not compel others to join that voluntary association. Even within such a voluntary association, he believed that people or groups could only rightly compel compliance with the natural law, which was generally extremely simple and basically entailed the command to "live honestly, hurt no one, and give everyone his or her due." In an 1882 publication entitled Natural Law; or The Science of Justice, Spooner set out to explain the concept of natural law. In it, he made a distinction between those things that everyone has a legal duty to either do or to refrain from doing, and which others can and must compel in others, and those things which everyone has a moral duty to do but which must be left up to each person's own judgment and which no one has the right or duty to compel. Below is a table based upon Spooner's 1882 text, generally following the order and wording of his argument: The left column (labeled "Legal Duty" and highlighted in yellow), in Spooner's view, constitutes those things which are part of the natural law, and can actually be the only things which anyone can rightfully use force to uphold. He says that everyone has a duty to refrain from injuring others, and that force may and must be used when someone sees someone else in the act of injuring someone else. Spooner further argues in that 1882 text that nearly everyone understands these natural law prohibitions and duties before they are even old enough to know that "three and three are six, or five and five ten" (9). The right column (labeled "Moral Duty" and highlighted in green), in Spooner's view, constitutes those things which we do have a moral duty to perform, but which no one else can compel us to do: we must judge the extent to which we are able to do those things, and how we wish to best accomplish them when we do decide to do them. Thus, in Spooner's view, any so-called law that goes beyond the legal duties in the left column (or, worse yet, directly contradicts and violates those legal duties, as did the Fugitive Slave Acts) is actually no law at all and it can and must be disobeyed as illegal and criminal, regardless of whether it was written down on paper using legal-sounding language and passed by men and women in fancy buildings and stamped with fancy stamps and inscribed with fancy signatures. At this point, the reader may be thinking that all of this is very nice, but what on earth does it have to do with the general subject matter covered in this blog? The answer is: everything. Because, as insightful thinkers such as Mark Passio have articulated, violations of natural law are so contrary to our innate understanding of right and wrong (remember that Spooner says we know it before we even know that 3 + 3 = 6) that artificial laws which violate natural law must always be dressed up with various symbols and word-formulas designed to convey legitimacy, and reinforced by systems of mind control by which men and women who should know that those violations are immoral can somehow be made to believe that those violations of natural law are instead right and good and deserving of support. Institutionalized violations of natural law are nearly always accompanied by powerful forms of illusion, or the creation of "false realities" that enable those violations to appear legitimate, and to get people to go along with them. Therefore, seeing through these false realities is of absolutely primary importance. This blog primarily examines false realities which can be seen operating all around us, including in the realm of conventional history as taught in all the institutions of academia and reinforced by the organs of the conventional media (see for example "Piercing the fog of deception that hides the contours of history" and also the two short videos entitled "The importance of challenging false narratives"). These false realities or false narratives which cause people to accept gross violations of natural law are operating today with just as much force as they were operating in Spooner's day -- perhaps even more so. False narratives assist in getting people to accept the premise that so-called "laws" permitting government surveillance of individual men and women at virtually any time and place are legitimate (see here and here). This is a violation of natural law in that it enables hidden enforcers and observers to treat individuals as criminals on the suspicion that they might do something to harm others, elevating some to the status of "prison guards" and demoting everyone else to the status of prisoners under constant suspicion and surveillance. False narratives convince people to accept the idea that men and women can and should be locked up and denied their freedom for possessing certain plants or mushrooms known to induce a state of ecstasy. This is a violation of natural law in that it uses force to prohibit behavior that in no way harms the person or property of another or infringes on another's rights. False narratives convince people to accept the idea that men and women representing the government and wearing military gear and driving military vehicles can point military weapons at people assembling in the streets to express themselves, or at people in their homes in a neighborhood where fugitives are supposedly hiding. These are clear violations of natural law in that such actions basically declare that force can be used against citizens whenever it is convenient for the government to say there is a need to do so, an idea which Spooner eloquently demolishes in pages 27 and 28 of his text against the Fugitive Slave Acts. In a passage labeled "Section IV" of his 1882 treatise on Natural Law, Spooner declares that the rights belonging to every human being by the unchangeable principle of justice "necessarily remain with him [or her] during life," and although these rights are "capable of being trampled upon" they are nevertheless "incapable of being blotted out, extinguished, annihilated, or separated from" each and every human being, and that there is no authority high enough to simply declare them null or void. False narratives have even apparently convinced some people that it is somehow excusable to cover up evidence of the potentially harmful effects of vaccines on certain children in order to support "herd immunity." All of the above examples, along with the many other violations of natural law currently taking place, are enabled and excused by a variety of false realities or false narratives, created and maintained in order to lend an air of legitimacy to these violations. So were many other horrendous violations of natural law which were enabled by false narratives and illusions throughout history, including the enslavement of Africans which Spooner argued against in the 1850s, to the destruction of Native American tribes in the western US after the end of the US Civil War and the seizure of their lands and their confinement to reservations or "agencies," to the seizure of the Hawaiian Islands and the Philippines in the years after that, and on and on right up to the present. All of the above examples were enabled by lies, illusions, and false narratives or false realities. For more on breaking through illusions and false realities, and creating new realities, see for example this previous post entitled "Jon Rappoport's talk on the trickster-god and creating reality." It is one of Lysander Spooner's singular contributions that he perceived and forcefully argued that a criminal "law" is no law at all, and that men and women have the right and the duty to treat it as such, and to inform others of their right to do the same. Putting something on paper doesn't make it a "law" -- even if it has been adorned with all the necessary stamps and signatures. As Spooner alludes in the writings linked above, the US Constitution as originally designed, and especially the Bill of Rights as originally conceived, were designed to safeguard natural-law rights in many ways, and to the extent that Schoolhouse Rock taught those principles to a new generation in the 1970s, it can be commended. Perhaps Spooner's arguments about an illegal law being no law at all could not really be expected to be squeezed into the "I'm Just a Bill" song. But Lysander Spooner's arguments deserve to be brought into the modern era, in much the same way that the creators of Schoolhouse Rock tried to speak to the younger generation of the 1970s using the language and imagery of the 1970s. Spooner's arguments on behalf of the individual's rights under natural law -- rights which could never be abridged by any authority -- and his arguments against the creation of arbitrary "laws" which everyone has to obey just because a legislature or a president gave them the title of a "law" deserve examination, consideration, and thoughtful debate today more than ever. And the false narratives supporting so-called laws which supposedly authorize some people to use violence against others, or to threaten violence against others, or to take away the freedom of others when those others have not done anything to harm anyone else's persons or property, must be shown to be the form of mind control that they are. No individuals or groups can give themselves the right to violate natural law and in doing so to infringe on anyone else's rights, simply by writing something down on a "sad little scrap of paper."

<urn:uuid:17474726-e53e-48c9-a980-028439f26526>

CC-MAIN-2018-13

http://www.starmythworld.com/mathisencorollary/2014/09/does-writing-something-on-piece-of.html

s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2018-13/segments/1521257647892.89/warc/CC-MAIN-20180322151300-20180322171300-00710.warc.gz

en

<urn:uuid:17474726-e53e-48c9-a980-028439f26526>_16

Note that this is not just a hypothetical scenario: the first and the thirteenth presidents of the United States each signed such a proposition into "law."

"Whew! You sure gotta climb a lot of steps to get to the Capitol Building here in Washington. Well I wonder who that sad little scrap of paper is?" And with those words began one of my childhood favorite Schoolhouse Rock videos, which used to be on television back in the early 1970s when I wasn't really old enough to have any idea what exactly they were all about, or why they would sometimes show up in between episodes of Superfriends, Speed Racer, or Sigmund and the Sea Monsters. In I'm just a bill," we witness the progress by which "that sad little scrap of paper" receives a fancy seal and a president's signature and becomes a law ("He signed ya, Bill: Now you're a Law!"). Although the video does an admirable job depicting some of the checks and balances contained in the US Constitution, through which the members of both houses of the legislature must agree to send the bill forward to the executive branch for final approval before any proposed bill is signed into law, it does tend to convey the impression that any "good idea" can be transformed into "a Law" through the magical process of being debated by important-looking men in impressive-looking buildings with lots of steps and Greek columns, on top of high hills (and filled with long rows of impassive US Marines in dress blue uniforms, and statues of distinguished statesmen from previous generations), signed by the president using a fountain pen, and affixed with a shiny-looking seal with a ribbon. Nineteenth-century abolitionist, legal scholar and philosopher Lysander Spooner (1808 - 1887) would vehemently disagree that something becomes "a law" just because it goes through the above process and receives a president's signature and a fancy stamp. In fact, he published a treatise in 1850 entitled A Defence for Fugitive Slaves against the Acts of Congress of February 12, 1793 and September 18, 1850, in which he argued that an illegal law is no law at all, and confers no obligation on anyone to obey it, nor any authority to anyone desiring to enforce it. He begins his treatise with the complete copy of each of the two acts in question, both of which were considered "law" in 1850, compelling men or women who knew of a "fugitive slave" to help catch that "fugitive slave" or face penalties including fines and imprisonment (the term "slave" is put in quotation marks here because Spooner argues that no person can ever own another person, and that there actually is no such thing as a legal slave or the legal condition of slavery, all so-called "laws" which make one person the property of another being illegal and criminal). Those two so-called laws (the Fugitive Slave Act of 1793 and the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850) were both signed by the presidents of their day, George Washington in the first instance and Millard Fillmore in the second (they also bear the signatures of the respective Speakers of the House and Presidents of the Senate). But these signatures do not make them true laws, according to Spooner's arguments. Spooner demonstrates that holding anyone else as property is a crime, and that putting something on paper, stamping it with fancy seals, embellishing it with fancy legal language, and endorsing it with the signatures of people bearing impressive titles does not make it into law: it's still just a "sad little scrap of paper" in his eyes. He even goes so far as to say that men and women have the right to resist illegal laws, in what is undoubtedly among the most important sections of his argument, found on pages 27 and 28. There, he powerfully dismantles the counter-arguments that he anticipates from those who would argue that once something is "a law," it must be obeyed until it is repealed. If it were really true that an illegal or unconstitutional law must be obeyed until repealed, he reasons, then "there would therefore be no difference at all between a constitutional and an unconstitutional law, in respect to their binding force; and that would be equivalent to abolishing the constitution, and giving to the government unlimited power" (28). Those who would disagree with Lysander Spooner on this point are invited to participate in a mental experiment, in which they imagine that the president has signed a law saying that if you in any way hinder the search for an escaped slave, or in any way assist a person who has been designated a "slave" and who has run away and is hiding from the authorities, then you yourself are a criminal and can be subject to enormous fines and imprisonment. Note that this is not just a hypothetical scenario: the first and the thirteenth presidents of the United States each signed such a proposition into "law." Today, nobody reading this blog would likely argue that they would feel a moral duty to obey such a "law," or that they would have to actually support it until such time as they could eventually get it repealed through the same arduous process depicted in the Schoolhouse Rock video shown above. Nearly every man or woman would agree with Spooner that the institution of slavery and "laws" enforcing one person's ability to "own" another are not laws but rather outrageous crimes, and would reject the notion that writing such a "law" down on a piece of paper, stamping it with a pretty seal and adding some flowery signatures suddenly turns it into something that must be willingly and voluntarily obeyed until it can be debated and eventually repealed. Writing something on a piece of paper does not make it a law. But, if this is true, then what does make something a law? Lysander Spooner argued that the actions of men and women cannot actually make anything a law, but that there is already an immutable or unchangeable universal law which he called "Natural Law" or the "Science of Justice." He believed that human society should only enforce natural law, and not dream up additional or "artificial" laws, and that trying to add to or subtract from the natural law is as foolish as trying to add to or subtract from other natural laws, such as the law of gravity. He argued that men and women could voluntarily band together to help ensure compliance with this natural law among their group, but that they could not compel others to join that voluntary association. Even within such a voluntary association, he believed that people or groups could only rightly compel compliance with the natural law, which was generally extremely simple and basically entailed the command to "live honestly, hurt no one, and give everyone his or her due." In an 1882 publication entitled Natural Law; or The Science of Justice, Spooner set out to explain the concept of natural law. In it, he made a distinction between those things that everyone has a legal duty to either do or to refrain from doing, and which others can and must compel in others, and those things which everyone has a moral duty to do but which must be left up to each person's own judgment and which no one has the right or duty to compel. Below is a table based upon Spooner's 1882 text, generally following the order and wording of his argument: The left column (labeled "Legal Duty" and highlighted in yellow), in Spooner's view, constitutes those things which are part of the natural law, and can actually be the only things which anyone can rightfully use force to uphold. He says that everyone has a duty to refrain from injuring others, and that force may and must be used when someone sees someone else in the act of injuring someone else. Spooner further argues in that 1882 text that nearly everyone understands these natural law prohibitions and duties before they are even old enough to know that "three and three are six, or five and five ten" (9). The right column (labeled "Moral Duty" and highlighted in green), in Spooner's view, constitutes those things which we do have a moral duty to perform, but which no one else can compel us to do: we must judge the extent to which we are able to do those things, and how we wish to best accomplish them when we do decide to do them. Thus, in Spooner's view, any so-called law that goes beyond the legal duties in the left column (or, worse yet, directly contradicts and violates those legal duties, as did the Fugitive Slave Acts) is actually no law at all and it can and must be disobeyed as illegal and criminal, regardless of whether it was written down on paper using legal-sounding language and passed by men and women in fancy buildings and stamped with fancy stamps and inscribed with fancy signatures. At this point, the reader may be thinking that all of this is very nice, but what on earth does it have to do with the general subject matter covered in this blog? The answer is: everything. Because, as insightful thinkers such as Mark Passio have articulated, violations of natural law are so contrary to our innate understanding of right and wrong (remember that Spooner says we know it before we even know that 3 + 3 = 6) that artificial laws which violate natural law must always be dressed up with various symbols and word-formulas designed to convey legitimacy, and reinforced by systems of mind control by which men and women who should know that those violations are immoral can somehow be made to believe that those violations of natural law are instead right and good and deserving of support. Institutionalized violations of natural law are nearly always accompanied by powerful forms of illusion, or the creation of "false realities" that enable those violations to appear legitimate, and to get people to go along with them. Therefore, seeing through these false realities is of absolutely primary importance. This blog primarily examines false realities which can be seen operating all around us, including in the realm of conventional history as taught in all the institutions of academia and reinforced by the organs of the conventional media (see for example "Piercing the fog of deception that hides the contours of history" and also the two short videos entitled "The importance of challenging false narratives"). These false realities or false narratives which cause people to accept gross violations of natural law are operating today with just as much force as they were operating in Spooner's day -- perhaps even more so. False narratives assist in getting people to accept the premise that so-called "laws" permitting government surveillance of individual men and women at virtually any time and place are legitimate (see here and here). This is a violation of natural law in that it enables hidden enforcers and observers to treat individuals as criminals on the suspicion that they might do something to harm others, elevating some to the status of "prison guards" and demoting everyone else to the status of prisoners under constant suspicion and surveillance. False narratives convince people to accept the idea that men and women can and should be locked up and denied their freedom for possessing certain plants or mushrooms known to induce a state of ecstasy. This is a violation of natural law in that it uses force to prohibit behavior that in no way harms the person or property of another or infringes on another's rights. False narratives convince people to accept the idea that men and women representing the government and wearing military gear and driving military vehicles can point military weapons at people assembling in the streets to express themselves, or at people in their homes in a neighborhood where fugitives are supposedly hiding. These are clear violations of natural law in that such actions basically declare that force can be used against citizens whenever it is convenient for the government to say there is a need to do so, an idea which Spooner eloquently demolishes in pages 27 and 28 of his text against the Fugitive Slave Acts. In a passage labeled "Section IV" of his 1882 treatise on Natural Law, Spooner declares that the rights belonging to every human being by the unchangeable principle of justice "necessarily remain with him [or her] during life," and although these rights are "capable of being trampled upon" they are nevertheless "incapable of being blotted out, extinguished, annihilated, or separated from" each and every human being, and that there is no authority high enough to simply declare them null or void. False narratives have even apparently convinced some people that it is somehow excusable to cover up evidence of the potentially harmful effects of vaccines on certain children in order to support "herd immunity." All of the above examples, along with the many other violations of natural law currently taking place, are enabled and excused by a variety of false realities or false narratives, created and maintained in order to lend an air of legitimacy to these violations. So were many other horrendous violations of natural law which were enabled by false narratives and illusions throughout history, including the enslavement of Africans which Spooner argued against in the 1850s, to the destruction of Native American tribes in the western US after the end of the US Civil War and the seizure of their lands and their confinement to reservations or "agencies," to the seizure of the Hawaiian Islands and the Philippines in the years after that, and on and on right up to the present. All of the above examples were enabled by lies, illusions, and false narratives or false realities. For more on breaking through illusions and false realities, and creating new realities, see for example this previous post entitled "Jon Rappoport's talk on the trickster-god and creating reality." It is one of Lysander Spooner's singular contributions that he perceived and forcefully argued that a criminal "law" is no law at all, and that men and women have the right and the duty to treat it as such, and to inform others of their right to do the same. Putting something on paper doesn't make it a "law" -- even if it has been adorned with all the necessary stamps and signatures. As Spooner alludes in the writings linked above, the US Constitution as originally designed, and especially the Bill of Rights as originally conceived, were designed to safeguard natural-law rights in many ways, and to the extent that Schoolhouse Rock taught those principles to a new generation in the 1970s, it can be commended. Perhaps Spooner's arguments about an illegal law being no law at all could not really be expected to be squeezed into the "I'm Just a Bill" song. But Lysander Spooner's arguments deserve to be brought into the modern era, in much the same way that the creators of Schoolhouse Rock tried to speak to the younger generation of the 1970s using the language and imagery of the 1970s. Spooner's arguments on behalf of the individual's rights under natural law -- rights which could never be abridged by any authority -- and his arguments against the creation of arbitrary "laws" which everyone has to obey just because a legislature or a president gave them the title of a "law" deserve examination, consideration, and thoughtful debate today more than ever. And the false narratives supporting so-called laws which supposedly authorize some people to use violence against others, or to threaten violence against others, or to take away the freedom of others when those others have not done anything to harm anyone else's persons or property, must be shown to be the form of mind control that they are. No individuals or groups can give themselves the right to violate natural law and in doing so to infringe on anyone else's rights, simply by writing something down on a "sad little scrap of paper."

<urn:uuid:17474726-e53e-48c9-a980-028439f26526>

CC-MAIN-2018-13

http://www.starmythworld.com/mathisencorollary/2014/09/does-writing-something-on-piece-of.html

s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2018-13/segments/1521257647892.89/warc/CC-MAIN-20180322151300-20180322171300-00710.warc.gz

en

<urn:uuid:17474726-e53e-48c9-a980-028439f26526>_17

Today, nobody reading this blog would likely argue that they would feel a moral duty to obey such a "law," or that they would have to actually support it until such time as they could eventually get it repealed through the same arduous process depicted in the Schoolhouse Rock video shown above.

"Whew! You sure gotta climb a lot of steps to get to the Capitol Building here in Washington. Well I wonder who that sad little scrap of paper is?" And with those words began one of my childhood favorite Schoolhouse Rock videos, which used to be on television back in the early 1970s when I wasn't really old enough to have any idea what exactly they were all about, or why they would sometimes show up in between episodes of Superfriends, Speed Racer, or Sigmund and the Sea Monsters. In I'm just a bill," we witness the progress by which "that sad little scrap of paper" receives a fancy seal and a president's signature and becomes a law ("He signed ya, Bill: Now you're a Law!"). Although the video does an admirable job depicting some of the checks and balances contained in the US Constitution, through which the members of both houses of the legislature must agree to send the bill forward to the executive branch for final approval before any proposed bill is signed into law, it does tend to convey the impression that any "good idea" can be transformed into "a Law" through the magical process of being debated by important-looking men in impressive-looking buildings with lots of steps and Greek columns, on top of high hills (and filled with long rows of impassive US Marines in dress blue uniforms, and statues of distinguished statesmen from previous generations), signed by the president using a fountain pen, and affixed with a shiny-looking seal with a ribbon. Nineteenth-century abolitionist, legal scholar and philosopher Lysander Spooner (1808 - 1887) would vehemently disagree that something becomes "a law" just because it goes through the above process and receives a president's signature and a fancy stamp. In fact, he published a treatise in 1850 entitled A Defence for Fugitive Slaves against the Acts of Congress of February 12, 1793 and September 18, 1850, in which he argued that an illegal law is no law at all, and confers no obligation on anyone to obey it, nor any authority to anyone desiring to enforce it. He begins his treatise with the complete copy of each of the two acts in question, both of which were considered "law" in 1850, compelling men or women who knew of a "fugitive slave" to help catch that "fugitive slave" or face penalties including fines and imprisonment (the term "slave" is put in quotation marks here because Spooner argues that no person can ever own another person, and that there actually is no such thing as a legal slave or the legal condition of slavery, all so-called "laws" which make one person the property of another being illegal and criminal). Those two so-called laws (the Fugitive Slave Act of 1793 and the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850) were both signed by the presidents of their day, George Washington in the first instance and Millard Fillmore in the second (they also bear the signatures of the respective Speakers of the House and Presidents of the Senate). But these signatures do not make them true laws, according to Spooner's arguments. Spooner demonstrates that holding anyone else as property is a crime, and that putting something on paper, stamping it with fancy seals, embellishing it with fancy legal language, and endorsing it with the signatures of people bearing impressive titles does not make it into law: it's still just a "sad little scrap of paper" in his eyes. He even goes so far as to say that men and women have the right to resist illegal laws, in what is undoubtedly among the most important sections of his argument, found on pages 27 and 28. There, he powerfully dismantles the counter-arguments that he anticipates from those who would argue that once something is "a law," it must be obeyed until it is repealed. If it were really true that an illegal or unconstitutional law must be obeyed until repealed, he reasons, then "there would therefore be no difference at all between a constitutional and an unconstitutional law, in respect to their binding force; and that would be equivalent to abolishing the constitution, and giving to the government unlimited power" (28). Those who would disagree with Lysander Spooner on this point are invited to participate in a mental experiment, in which they imagine that the president has signed a law saying that if you in any way hinder the search for an escaped slave, or in any way assist a person who has been designated a "slave" and who has run away and is hiding from the authorities, then you yourself are a criminal and can be subject to enormous fines and imprisonment. Note that this is not just a hypothetical scenario: the first and the thirteenth presidents of the United States each signed such a proposition into "law." Today, nobody reading this blog would likely argue that they would feel a moral duty to obey such a "law," or that they would have to actually support it until such time as they could eventually get it repealed through the same arduous process depicted in the Schoolhouse Rock video shown above. Nearly every man or woman would agree with Spooner that the institution of slavery and "laws" enforcing one person's ability to "own" another are not laws but rather outrageous crimes, and would reject the notion that writing such a "law" down on a piece of paper, stamping it with a pretty seal and adding some flowery signatures suddenly turns it into something that must be willingly and voluntarily obeyed until it can be debated and eventually repealed. Writing something on a piece of paper does not make it a law. But, if this is true, then what does make something a law? Lysander Spooner argued that the actions of men and women cannot actually make anything a law, but that there is already an immutable or unchangeable universal law which he called "Natural Law" or the "Science of Justice." He believed that human society should only enforce natural law, and not dream up additional or "artificial" laws, and that trying to add to or subtract from the natural law is as foolish as trying to add to or subtract from other natural laws, such as the law of gravity. He argued that men and women could voluntarily band together to help ensure compliance with this natural law among their group, but that they could not compel others to join that voluntary association. Even within such a voluntary association, he believed that people or groups could only rightly compel compliance with the natural law, which was generally extremely simple and basically entailed the command to "live honestly, hurt no one, and give everyone his or her due." In an 1882 publication entitled Natural Law; or The Science of Justice, Spooner set out to explain the concept of natural law. In it, he made a distinction between those things that everyone has a legal duty to either do or to refrain from doing, and which others can and must compel in others, and those things which everyone has a moral duty to do but which must be left up to each person's own judgment and which no one has the right or duty to compel. Below is a table based upon Spooner's 1882 text, generally following the order and wording of his argument: The left column (labeled "Legal Duty" and highlighted in yellow), in Spooner's view, constitutes those things which are part of the natural law, and can actually be the only things which anyone can rightfully use force to uphold. He says that everyone has a duty to refrain from injuring others, and that force may and must be used when someone sees someone else in the act of injuring someone else. Spooner further argues in that 1882 text that nearly everyone understands these natural law prohibitions and duties before they are even old enough to know that "three and three are six, or five and five ten" (9). The right column (labeled "Moral Duty" and highlighted in green), in Spooner's view, constitutes those things which we do have a moral duty to perform, but which no one else can compel us to do: we must judge the extent to which we are able to do those things, and how we wish to best accomplish them when we do decide to do them. Thus, in Spooner's view, any so-called law that goes beyond the legal duties in the left column (or, worse yet, directly contradicts and violates those legal duties, as did the Fugitive Slave Acts) is actually no law at all and it can and must be disobeyed as illegal and criminal, regardless of whether it was written down on paper using legal-sounding language and passed by men and women in fancy buildings and stamped with fancy stamps and inscribed with fancy signatures. At this point, the reader may be thinking that all of this is very nice, but what on earth does it have to do with the general subject matter covered in this blog? The answer is: everything. Because, as insightful thinkers such as Mark Passio have articulated, violations of natural law are so contrary to our innate understanding of right and wrong (remember that Spooner says we know it before we even know that 3 + 3 = 6) that artificial laws which violate natural law must always be dressed up with various symbols and word-formulas designed to convey legitimacy, and reinforced by systems of mind control by which men and women who should know that those violations are immoral can somehow be made to believe that those violations of natural law are instead right and good and deserving of support. Institutionalized violations of natural law are nearly always accompanied by powerful forms of illusion, or the creation of "false realities" that enable those violations to appear legitimate, and to get people to go along with them. Therefore, seeing through these false realities is of absolutely primary importance. This blog primarily examines false realities which can be seen operating all around us, including in the realm of conventional history as taught in all the institutions of academia and reinforced by the organs of the conventional media (see for example "Piercing the fog of deception that hides the contours of history" and also the two short videos entitled "The importance of challenging false narratives"). These false realities or false narratives which cause people to accept gross violations of natural law are operating today with just as much force as they were operating in Spooner's day -- perhaps even more so. False narratives assist in getting people to accept the premise that so-called "laws" permitting government surveillance of individual men and women at virtually any time and place are legitimate (see here and here). This is a violation of natural law in that it enables hidden enforcers and observers to treat individuals as criminals on the suspicion that they might do something to harm others, elevating some to the status of "prison guards" and demoting everyone else to the status of prisoners under constant suspicion and surveillance. False narratives convince people to accept the idea that men and women can and should be locked up and denied their freedom for possessing certain plants or mushrooms known to induce a state of ecstasy. This is a violation of natural law in that it uses force to prohibit behavior that in no way harms the person or property of another or infringes on another's rights. False narratives convince people to accept the idea that men and women representing the government and wearing military gear and driving military vehicles can point military weapons at people assembling in the streets to express themselves, or at people in their homes in a neighborhood where fugitives are supposedly hiding. These are clear violations of natural law in that such actions basically declare that force can be used against citizens whenever it is convenient for the government to say there is a need to do so, an idea which Spooner eloquently demolishes in pages 27 and 28 of his text against the Fugitive Slave Acts. In a passage labeled "Section IV" of his 1882 treatise on Natural Law, Spooner declares that the rights belonging to every human being by the unchangeable principle of justice "necessarily remain with him [or her] during life," and although these rights are "capable of being trampled upon" they are nevertheless "incapable of being blotted out, extinguished, annihilated, or separated from" each and every human being, and that there is no authority high enough to simply declare them null or void. False narratives have even apparently convinced some people that it is somehow excusable to cover up evidence of the potentially harmful effects of vaccines on certain children in order to support "herd immunity." All of the above examples, along with the many other violations of natural law currently taking place, are enabled and excused by a variety of false realities or false narratives, created and maintained in order to lend an air of legitimacy to these violations. So were many other horrendous violations of natural law which were enabled by false narratives and illusions throughout history, including the enslavement of Africans which Spooner argued against in the 1850s, to the destruction of Native American tribes in the western US after the end of the US Civil War and the seizure of their lands and their confinement to reservations or "agencies," to the seizure of the Hawaiian Islands and the Philippines in the years after that, and on and on right up to the present. All of the above examples were enabled by lies, illusions, and false narratives or false realities. For more on breaking through illusions and false realities, and creating new realities, see for example this previous post entitled "Jon Rappoport's talk on the trickster-god and creating reality." It is one of Lysander Spooner's singular contributions that he perceived and forcefully argued that a criminal "law" is no law at all, and that men and women have the right and the duty to treat it as such, and to inform others of their right to do the same. Putting something on paper doesn't make it a "law" -- even if it has been adorned with all the necessary stamps and signatures. As Spooner alludes in the writings linked above, the US Constitution as originally designed, and especially the Bill of Rights as originally conceived, were designed to safeguard natural-law rights in many ways, and to the extent that Schoolhouse Rock taught those principles to a new generation in the 1970s, it can be commended. Perhaps Spooner's arguments about an illegal law being no law at all could not really be expected to be squeezed into the "I'm Just a Bill" song. But Lysander Spooner's arguments deserve to be brought into the modern era, in much the same way that the creators of Schoolhouse Rock tried to speak to the younger generation of the 1970s using the language and imagery of the 1970s. Spooner's arguments on behalf of the individual's rights under natural law -- rights which could never be abridged by any authority -- and his arguments against the creation of arbitrary "laws" which everyone has to obey just because a legislature or a president gave them the title of a "law" deserve examination, consideration, and thoughtful debate today more than ever. And the false narratives supporting so-called laws which supposedly authorize some people to use violence against others, or to threaten violence against others, or to take away the freedom of others when those others have not done anything to harm anyone else's persons or property, must be shown to be the form of mind control that they are. No individuals or groups can give themselves the right to violate natural law and in doing so to infringe on anyone else's rights, simply by writing something down on a "sad little scrap of paper."

<urn:uuid:17474726-e53e-48c9-a980-028439f26526>

CC-MAIN-2018-13

http://www.starmythworld.com/mathisencorollary/2014/09/does-writing-something-on-piece-of.html

s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2018-13/segments/1521257647892.89/warc/CC-MAIN-20180322151300-20180322171300-00710.warc.gz

en

<urn:uuid:17474726-e53e-48c9-a980-028439f26526>_18

Nearly every man or woman would agree with Spooner that the institution of slavery and "laws" enforcing one person's ability to "own" another are not laws but rather outrageous crimes, and would reject the notion that writing such a "law" down on a piece of paper, stamping it with a pretty seal and adding some flowery signatures suddenly turns it into something that must be willingly and voluntarily obeyed until it can be debated and eventually repealed.

"Whew! You sure gotta climb a lot of steps to get to the Capitol Building here in Washington. Well I wonder who that sad little scrap of paper is?" And with those words began one of my childhood favorite Schoolhouse Rock videos, which used to be on television back in the early 1970s when I wasn't really old enough to have any idea what exactly they were all about, or why they would sometimes show up in between episodes of Superfriends, Speed Racer, or Sigmund and the Sea Monsters. In I'm just a bill," we witness the progress by which "that sad little scrap of paper" receives a fancy seal and a president's signature and becomes a law ("He signed ya, Bill: Now you're a Law!"). Although the video does an admirable job depicting some of the checks and balances contained in the US Constitution, through which the members of both houses of the legislature must agree to send the bill forward to the executive branch for final approval before any proposed bill is signed into law, it does tend to convey the impression that any "good idea" can be transformed into "a Law" through the magical process of being debated by important-looking men in impressive-looking buildings with lots of steps and Greek columns, on top of high hills (and filled with long rows of impassive US Marines in dress blue uniforms, and statues of distinguished statesmen from previous generations), signed by the president using a fountain pen, and affixed with a shiny-looking seal with a ribbon. Nineteenth-century abolitionist, legal scholar and philosopher Lysander Spooner (1808 - 1887) would vehemently disagree that something becomes "a law" just because it goes through the above process and receives a president's signature and a fancy stamp. In fact, he published a treatise in 1850 entitled A Defence for Fugitive Slaves against the Acts of Congress of February 12, 1793 and September 18, 1850, in which he argued that an illegal law is no law at all, and confers no obligation on anyone to obey it, nor any authority to anyone desiring to enforce it. He begins his treatise with the complete copy of each of the two acts in question, both of which were considered "law" in 1850, compelling men or women who knew of a "fugitive slave" to help catch that "fugitive slave" or face penalties including fines and imprisonment (the term "slave" is put in quotation marks here because Spooner argues that no person can ever own another person, and that there actually is no such thing as a legal slave or the legal condition of slavery, all so-called "laws" which make one person the property of another being illegal and criminal). Those two so-called laws (the Fugitive Slave Act of 1793 and the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850) were both signed by the presidents of their day, George Washington in the first instance and Millard Fillmore in the second (they also bear the signatures of the respective Speakers of the House and Presidents of the Senate). But these signatures do not make them true laws, according to Spooner's arguments. Spooner demonstrates that holding anyone else as property is a crime, and that putting something on paper, stamping it with fancy seals, embellishing it with fancy legal language, and endorsing it with the signatures of people bearing impressive titles does not make it into law: it's still just a "sad little scrap of paper" in his eyes. He even goes so far as to say that men and women have the right to resist illegal laws, in what is undoubtedly among the most important sections of his argument, found on pages 27 and 28. There, he powerfully dismantles the counter-arguments that he anticipates from those who would argue that once something is "a law," it must be obeyed until it is repealed. If it were really true that an illegal or unconstitutional law must be obeyed until repealed, he reasons, then "there would therefore be no difference at all between a constitutional and an unconstitutional law, in respect to their binding force; and that would be equivalent to abolishing the constitution, and giving to the government unlimited power" (28). Those who would disagree with Lysander Spooner on this point are invited to participate in a mental experiment, in which they imagine that the president has signed a law saying that if you in any way hinder the search for an escaped slave, or in any way assist a person who has been designated a "slave" and who has run away and is hiding from the authorities, then you yourself are a criminal and can be subject to enormous fines and imprisonment. Note that this is not just a hypothetical scenario: the first and the thirteenth presidents of the United States each signed such a proposition into "law." Today, nobody reading this blog would likely argue that they would feel a moral duty to obey such a "law," or that they would have to actually support it until such time as they could eventually get it repealed through the same arduous process depicted in the Schoolhouse Rock video shown above. Nearly every man or woman would agree with Spooner that the institution of slavery and "laws" enforcing one person's ability to "own" another are not laws but rather outrageous crimes, and would reject the notion that writing such a "law" down on a piece of paper, stamping it with a pretty seal and adding some flowery signatures suddenly turns it into something that must be willingly and voluntarily obeyed until it can be debated and eventually repealed. Writing something on a piece of paper does not make it a law. But, if this is true, then what does make something a law? Lysander Spooner argued that the actions of men and women cannot actually make anything a law, but that there is already an immutable or unchangeable universal law which he called "Natural Law" or the "Science of Justice." He believed that human society should only enforce natural law, and not dream up additional or "artificial" laws, and that trying to add to or subtract from the natural law is as foolish as trying to add to or subtract from other natural laws, such as the law of gravity. He argued that men and women could voluntarily band together to help ensure compliance with this natural law among their group, but that they could not compel others to join that voluntary association. Even within such a voluntary association, he believed that people or groups could only rightly compel compliance with the natural law, which was generally extremely simple and basically entailed the command to "live honestly, hurt no one, and give everyone his or her due." In an 1882 publication entitled Natural Law; or The Science of Justice, Spooner set out to explain the concept of natural law. In it, he made a distinction between those things that everyone has a legal duty to either do or to refrain from doing, and which others can and must compel in others, and those things which everyone has a moral duty to do but which must be left up to each person's own judgment and which no one has the right or duty to compel. Below is a table based upon Spooner's 1882 text, generally following the order and wording of his argument: The left column (labeled "Legal Duty" and highlighted in yellow), in Spooner's view, constitutes those things which are part of the natural law, and can actually be the only things which anyone can rightfully use force to uphold. He says that everyone has a duty to refrain from injuring others, and that force may and must be used when someone sees someone else in the act of injuring someone else. Spooner further argues in that 1882 text that nearly everyone understands these natural law prohibitions and duties before they are even old enough to know that "three and three are six, or five and five ten" (9). The right column (labeled "Moral Duty" and highlighted in green), in Spooner's view, constitutes those things which we do have a moral duty to perform, but which no one else can compel us to do: we must judge the extent to which we are able to do those things, and how we wish to best accomplish them when we do decide to do them. Thus, in Spooner's view, any so-called law that goes beyond the legal duties in the left column (or, worse yet, directly contradicts and violates those legal duties, as did the Fugitive Slave Acts) is actually no law at all and it can and must be disobeyed as illegal and criminal, regardless of whether it was written down on paper using legal-sounding language and passed by men and women in fancy buildings and stamped with fancy stamps and inscribed with fancy signatures. At this point, the reader may be thinking that all of this is very nice, but what on earth does it have to do with the general subject matter covered in this blog? The answer is: everything. Because, as insightful thinkers such as Mark Passio have articulated, violations of natural law are so contrary to our innate understanding of right and wrong (remember that Spooner says we know it before we even know that 3 + 3 = 6) that artificial laws which violate natural law must always be dressed up with various symbols and word-formulas designed to convey legitimacy, and reinforced by systems of mind control by which men and women who should know that those violations are immoral can somehow be made to believe that those violations of natural law are instead right and good and deserving of support. Institutionalized violations of natural law are nearly always accompanied by powerful forms of illusion, or the creation of "false realities" that enable those violations to appear legitimate, and to get people to go along with them. Therefore, seeing through these false realities is of absolutely primary importance. This blog primarily examines false realities which can be seen operating all around us, including in the realm of conventional history as taught in all the institutions of academia and reinforced by the organs of the conventional media (see for example "Piercing the fog of deception that hides the contours of history" and also the two short videos entitled "The importance of challenging false narratives"). These false realities or false narratives which cause people to accept gross violations of natural law are operating today with just as much force as they were operating in Spooner's day -- perhaps even more so. False narratives assist in getting people to accept the premise that so-called "laws" permitting government surveillance of individual men and women at virtually any time and place are legitimate (see here and here). This is a violation of natural law in that it enables hidden enforcers and observers to treat individuals as criminals on the suspicion that they might do something to harm others, elevating some to the status of "prison guards" and demoting everyone else to the status of prisoners under constant suspicion and surveillance. False narratives convince people to accept the idea that men and women can and should be locked up and denied their freedom for possessing certain plants or mushrooms known to induce a state of ecstasy. This is a violation of natural law in that it uses force to prohibit behavior that in no way harms the person or property of another or infringes on another's rights. False narratives convince people to accept the idea that men and women representing the government and wearing military gear and driving military vehicles can point military weapons at people assembling in the streets to express themselves, or at people in their homes in a neighborhood where fugitives are supposedly hiding. These are clear violations of natural law in that such actions basically declare that force can be used against citizens whenever it is convenient for the government to say there is a need to do so, an idea which Spooner eloquently demolishes in pages 27 and 28 of his text against the Fugitive Slave Acts. In a passage labeled "Section IV" of his 1882 treatise on Natural Law, Spooner declares that the rights belonging to every human being by the unchangeable principle of justice "necessarily remain with him [or her] during life," and although these rights are "capable of being trampled upon" they are nevertheless "incapable of being blotted out, extinguished, annihilated, or separated from" each and every human being, and that there is no authority high enough to simply declare them null or void. False narratives have even apparently convinced some people that it is somehow excusable to cover up evidence of the potentially harmful effects of vaccines on certain children in order to support "herd immunity." All of the above examples, along with the many other violations of natural law currently taking place, are enabled and excused by a variety of false realities or false narratives, created and maintained in order to lend an air of legitimacy to these violations. So were many other horrendous violations of natural law which were enabled by false narratives and illusions throughout history, including the enslavement of Africans which Spooner argued against in the 1850s, to the destruction of Native American tribes in the western US after the end of the US Civil War and the seizure of their lands and their confinement to reservations or "agencies," to the seizure of the Hawaiian Islands and the Philippines in the years after that, and on and on right up to the present. All of the above examples were enabled by lies, illusions, and false narratives or false realities. For more on breaking through illusions and false realities, and creating new realities, see for example this previous post entitled "Jon Rappoport's talk on the trickster-god and creating reality." It is one of Lysander Spooner's singular contributions that he perceived and forcefully argued that a criminal "law" is no law at all, and that men and women have the right and the duty to treat it as such, and to inform others of their right to do the same. Putting something on paper doesn't make it a "law" -- even if it has been adorned with all the necessary stamps and signatures. As Spooner alludes in the writings linked above, the US Constitution as originally designed, and especially the Bill of Rights as originally conceived, were designed to safeguard natural-law rights in many ways, and to the extent that Schoolhouse Rock taught those principles to a new generation in the 1970s, it can be commended. Perhaps Spooner's arguments about an illegal law being no law at all could not really be expected to be squeezed into the "I'm Just a Bill" song. But Lysander Spooner's arguments deserve to be brought into the modern era, in much the same way that the creators of Schoolhouse Rock tried to speak to the younger generation of the 1970s using the language and imagery of the 1970s. Spooner's arguments on behalf of the individual's rights under natural law -- rights which could never be abridged by any authority -- and his arguments against the creation of arbitrary "laws" which everyone has to obey just because a legislature or a president gave them the title of a "law" deserve examination, consideration, and thoughtful debate today more than ever. And the false narratives supporting so-called laws which supposedly authorize some people to use violence against others, or to threaten violence against others, or to take away the freedom of others when those others have not done anything to harm anyone else's persons or property, must be shown to be the form of mind control that they are. No individuals or groups can give themselves the right to violate natural law and in doing so to infringe on anyone else's rights, simply by writing something down on a "sad little scrap of paper."

<urn:uuid:17474726-e53e-48c9-a980-028439f26526>

CC-MAIN-2018-13

http://www.starmythworld.com/mathisencorollary/2014/09/does-writing-something-on-piece-of.html

s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2018-13/segments/1521257647892.89/warc/CC-MAIN-20180322151300-20180322171300-00710.warc.gz

en

<urn:uuid:17474726-e53e-48c9-a980-028439f26526>_19

Writing something on a piece of paper does not make it a law.

"Whew! You sure gotta climb a lot of steps to get to the Capitol Building here in Washington. Well I wonder who that sad little scrap of paper is?" And with those words began one of my childhood favorite Schoolhouse Rock videos, which used to be on television back in the early 1970s when I wasn't really old enough to have any idea what exactly they were all about, or why they would sometimes show up in between episodes of Superfriends, Speed Racer, or Sigmund and the Sea Monsters. In I'm just a bill," we witness the progress by which "that sad little scrap of paper" receives a fancy seal and a president's signature and becomes a law ("He signed ya, Bill: Now you're a Law!"). Although the video does an admirable job depicting some of the checks and balances contained in the US Constitution, through which the members of both houses of the legislature must agree to send the bill forward to the executive branch for final approval before any proposed bill is signed into law, it does tend to convey the impression that any "good idea" can be transformed into "a Law" through the magical process of being debated by important-looking men in impressive-looking buildings with lots of steps and Greek columns, on top of high hills (and filled with long rows of impassive US Marines in dress blue uniforms, and statues of distinguished statesmen from previous generations), signed by the president using a fountain pen, and affixed with a shiny-looking seal with a ribbon. Nineteenth-century abolitionist, legal scholar and philosopher Lysander Spooner (1808 - 1887) would vehemently disagree that something becomes "a law" just because it goes through the above process and receives a president's signature and a fancy stamp. In fact, he published a treatise in 1850 entitled A Defence for Fugitive Slaves against the Acts of Congress of February 12, 1793 and September 18, 1850, in which he argued that an illegal law is no law at all, and confers no obligation on anyone to obey it, nor any authority to anyone desiring to enforce it. He begins his treatise with the complete copy of each of the two acts in question, both of which were considered "law" in 1850, compelling men or women who knew of a "fugitive slave" to help catch that "fugitive slave" or face penalties including fines and imprisonment (the term "slave" is put in quotation marks here because Spooner argues that no person can ever own another person, and that there actually is no such thing as a legal slave or the legal condition of slavery, all so-called "laws" which make one person the property of another being illegal and criminal). Those two so-called laws (the Fugitive Slave Act of 1793 and the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850) were both signed by the presidents of their day, George Washington in the first instance and Millard Fillmore in the second (they also bear the signatures of the respective Speakers of the House and Presidents of the Senate). But these signatures do not make them true laws, according to Spooner's arguments. Spooner demonstrates that holding anyone else as property is a crime, and that putting something on paper, stamping it with fancy seals, embellishing it with fancy legal language, and endorsing it with the signatures of people bearing impressive titles does not make it into law: it's still just a "sad little scrap of paper" in his eyes. He even goes so far as to say that men and women have the right to resist illegal laws, in what is undoubtedly among the most important sections of his argument, found on pages 27 and 28. There, he powerfully dismantles the counter-arguments that he anticipates from those who would argue that once something is "a law," it must be obeyed until it is repealed. If it were really true that an illegal or unconstitutional law must be obeyed until repealed, he reasons, then "there would therefore be no difference at all between a constitutional and an unconstitutional law, in respect to their binding force; and that would be equivalent to abolishing the constitution, and giving to the government unlimited power" (28). Those who would disagree with Lysander Spooner on this point are invited to participate in a mental experiment, in which they imagine that the president has signed a law saying that if you in any way hinder the search for an escaped slave, or in any way assist a person who has been designated a "slave" and who has run away and is hiding from the authorities, then you yourself are a criminal and can be subject to enormous fines and imprisonment. Note that this is not just a hypothetical scenario: the first and the thirteenth presidents of the United States each signed such a proposition into "law." Today, nobody reading this blog would likely argue that they would feel a moral duty to obey such a "law," or that they would have to actually support it until such time as they could eventually get it repealed through the same arduous process depicted in the Schoolhouse Rock video shown above. Nearly every man or woman would agree with Spooner that the institution of slavery and "laws" enforcing one person's ability to "own" another are not laws but rather outrageous crimes, and would reject the notion that writing such a "law" down on a piece of paper, stamping it with a pretty seal and adding some flowery signatures suddenly turns it into something that must be willingly and voluntarily obeyed until it can be debated and eventually repealed. Writing something on a piece of paper does not make it a law. But, if this is true, then what does make something a law? Lysander Spooner argued that the actions of men and women cannot actually make anything a law, but that there is already an immutable or unchangeable universal law which he called "Natural Law" or the "Science of Justice." He believed that human society should only enforce natural law, and not dream up additional or "artificial" laws, and that trying to add to or subtract from the natural law is as foolish as trying to add to or subtract from other natural laws, such as the law of gravity. He argued that men and women could voluntarily band together to help ensure compliance with this natural law among their group, but that they could not compel others to join that voluntary association. Even within such a voluntary association, he believed that people or groups could only rightly compel compliance with the natural law, which was generally extremely simple and basically entailed the command to "live honestly, hurt no one, and give everyone his or her due." In an 1882 publication entitled Natural Law; or The Science of Justice, Spooner set out to explain the concept of natural law. In it, he made a distinction between those things that everyone has a legal duty to either do or to refrain from doing, and which others can and must compel in others, and those things which everyone has a moral duty to do but which must be left up to each person's own judgment and which no one has the right or duty to compel. Below is a table based upon Spooner's 1882 text, generally following the order and wording of his argument: The left column (labeled "Legal Duty" and highlighted in yellow), in Spooner's view, constitutes those things which are part of the natural law, and can actually be the only things which anyone can rightfully use force to uphold. He says that everyone has a duty to refrain from injuring others, and that force may and must be used when someone sees someone else in the act of injuring someone else. Spooner further argues in that 1882 text that nearly everyone understands these natural law prohibitions and duties before they are even old enough to know that "three and three are six, or five and five ten" (9). The right column (labeled "Moral Duty" and highlighted in green), in Spooner's view, constitutes those things which we do have a moral duty to perform, but which no one else can compel us to do: we must judge the extent to which we are able to do those things, and how we wish to best accomplish them when we do decide to do them. Thus, in Spooner's view, any so-called law that goes beyond the legal duties in the left column (or, worse yet, directly contradicts and violates those legal duties, as did the Fugitive Slave Acts) is actually no law at all and it can and must be disobeyed as illegal and criminal, regardless of whether it was written down on paper using legal-sounding language and passed by men and women in fancy buildings and stamped with fancy stamps and inscribed with fancy signatures. At this point, the reader may be thinking that all of this is very nice, but what on earth does it have to do with the general subject matter covered in this blog? The answer is: everything. Because, as insightful thinkers such as Mark Passio have articulated, violations of natural law are so contrary to our innate understanding of right and wrong (remember that Spooner says we know it before we even know that 3 + 3 = 6) that artificial laws which violate natural law must always be dressed up with various symbols and word-formulas designed to convey legitimacy, and reinforced by systems of mind control by which men and women who should know that those violations are immoral can somehow be made to believe that those violations of natural law are instead right and good and deserving of support. Institutionalized violations of natural law are nearly always accompanied by powerful forms of illusion, or the creation of "false realities" that enable those violations to appear legitimate, and to get people to go along with them. Therefore, seeing through these false realities is of absolutely primary importance. This blog primarily examines false realities which can be seen operating all around us, including in the realm of conventional history as taught in all the institutions of academia and reinforced by the organs of the conventional media (see for example "Piercing the fog of deception that hides the contours of history" and also the two short videos entitled "The importance of challenging false narratives"). These false realities or false narratives which cause people to accept gross violations of natural law are operating today with just as much force as they were operating in Spooner's day -- perhaps even more so. False narratives assist in getting people to accept the premise that so-called "laws" permitting government surveillance of individual men and women at virtually any time and place are legitimate (see here and here). This is a violation of natural law in that it enables hidden enforcers and observers to treat individuals as criminals on the suspicion that they might do something to harm others, elevating some to the status of "prison guards" and demoting everyone else to the status of prisoners under constant suspicion and surveillance. False narratives convince people to accept the idea that men and women can and should be locked up and denied their freedom for possessing certain plants or mushrooms known to induce a state of ecstasy. This is a violation of natural law in that it uses force to prohibit behavior that in no way harms the person or property of another or infringes on another's rights. False narratives convince people to accept the idea that men and women representing the government and wearing military gear and driving military vehicles can point military weapons at people assembling in the streets to express themselves, or at people in their homes in a neighborhood where fugitives are supposedly hiding. These are clear violations of natural law in that such actions basically declare that force can be used against citizens whenever it is convenient for the government to say there is a need to do so, an idea which Spooner eloquently demolishes in pages 27 and 28 of his text against the Fugitive Slave Acts. In a passage labeled "Section IV" of his 1882 treatise on Natural Law, Spooner declares that the rights belonging to every human being by the unchangeable principle of justice "necessarily remain with him [or her] during life," and although these rights are "capable of being trampled upon" they are nevertheless "incapable of being blotted out, extinguished, annihilated, or separated from" each and every human being, and that there is no authority high enough to simply declare them null or void. False narratives have even apparently convinced some people that it is somehow excusable to cover up evidence of the potentially harmful effects of vaccines on certain children in order to support "herd immunity." All of the above examples, along with the many other violations of natural law currently taking place, are enabled and excused by a variety of false realities or false narratives, created and maintained in order to lend an air of legitimacy to these violations. So were many other horrendous violations of natural law which were enabled by false narratives and illusions throughout history, including the enslavement of Africans which Spooner argued against in the 1850s, to the destruction of Native American tribes in the western US after the end of the US Civil War and the seizure of their lands and their confinement to reservations or "agencies," to the seizure of the Hawaiian Islands and the Philippines in the years after that, and on and on right up to the present. All of the above examples were enabled by lies, illusions, and false narratives or false realities. For more on breaking through illusions and false realities, and creating new realities, see for example this previous post entitled "Jon Rappoport's talk on the trickster-god and creating reality." It is one of Lysander Spooner's singular contributions that he perceived and forcefully argued that a criminal "law" is no law at all, and that men and women have the right and the duty to treat it as such, and to inform others of their right to do the same. Putting something on paper doesn't make it a "law" -- even if it has been adorned with all the necessary stamps and signatures. As Spooner alludes in the writings linked above, the US Constitution as originally designed, and especially the Bill of Rights as originally conceived, were designed to safeguard natural-law rights in many ways, and to the extent that Schoolhouse Rock taught those principles to a new generation in the 1970s, it can be commended. Perhaps Spooner's arguments about an illegal law being no law at all could not really be expected to be squeezed into the "I'm Just a Bill" song. But Lysander Spooner's arguments deserve to be brought into the modern era, in much the same way that the creators of Schoolhouse Rock tried to speak to the younger generation of the 1970s using the language and imagery of the 1970s. Spooner's arguments on behalf of the individual's rights under natural law -- rights which could never be abridged by any authority -- and his arguments against the creation of arbitrary "laws" which everyone has to obey just because a legislature or a president gave them the title of a "law" deserve examination, consideration, and thoughtful debate today more than ever. And the false narratives supporting so-called laws which supposedly authorize some people to use violence against others, or to threaten violence against others, or to take away the freedom of others when those others have not done anything to harm anyone else's persons or property, must be shown to be the form of mind control that they are. No individuals or groups can give themselves the right to violate natural law and in doing so to infringe on anyone else's rights, simply by writing something down on a "sad little scrap of paper."

<urn:uuid:17474726-e53e-48c9-a980-028439f26526>

CC-MAIN-2018-13

http://www.starmythworld.com/mathisencorollary/2014/09/does-writing-something-on-piece-of.html

s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2018-13/segments/1521257647892.89/warc/CC-MAIN-20180322151300-20180322171300-00710.warc.gz

en

<urn:uuid:17474726-e53e-48c9-a980-028439f26526>_20

But, if this is true, then what does make something a law?

"Whew! You sure gotta climb a lot of steps to get to the Capitol Building here in Washington. Well I wonder who that sad little scrap of paper is?" And with those words began one of my childhood favorite Schoolhouse Rock videos, which used to be on television back in the early 1970s when I wasn't really old enough to have any idea what exactly they were all about, or why they would sometimes show up in between episodes of Superfriends, Speed Racer, or Sigmund and the Sea Monsters. In I'm just a bill," we witness the progress by which "that sad little scrap of paper" receives a fancy seal and a president's signature and becomes a law ("He signed ya, Bill: Now you're a Law!"). Although the video does an admirable job depicting some of the checks and balances contained in the US Constitution, through which the members of both houses of the legislature must agree to send the bill forward to the executive branch for final approval before any proposed bill is signed into law, it does tend to convey the impression that any "good idea" can be transformed into "a Law" through the magical process of being debated by important-looking men in impressive-looking buildings with lots of steps and Greek columns, on top of high hills (and filled with long rows of impassive US Marines in dress blue uniforms, and statues of distinguished statesmen from previous generations), signed by the president using a fountain pen, and affixed with a shiny-looking seal with a ribbon. Nineteenth-century abolitionist, legal scholar and philosopher Lysander Spooner (1808 - 1887) would vehemently disagree that something becomes "a law" just because it goes through the above process and receives a president's signature and a fancy stamp. In fact, he published a treatise in 1850 entitled A Defence for Fugitive Slaves against the Acts of Congress of February 12, 1793 and September 18, 1850, in which he argued that an illegal law is no law at all, and confers no obligation on anyone to obey it, nor any authority to anyone desiring to enforce it. He begins his treatise with the complete copy of each of the two acts in question, both of which were considered "law" in 1850, compelling men or women who knew of a "fugitive slave" to help catch that "fugitive slave" or face penalties including fines and imprisonment (the term "slave" is put in quotation marks here because Spooner argues that no person can ever own another person, and that there actually is no such thing as a legal slave or the legal condition of slavery, all so-called "laws" which make one person the property of another being illegal and criminal). Those two so-called laws (the Fugitive Slave Act of 1793 and the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850) were both signed by the presidents of their day, George Washington in the first instance and Millard Fillmore in the second (they also bear the signatures of the respective Speakers of the House and Presidents of the Senate). But these signatures do not make them true laws, according to Spooner's arguments. Spooner demonstrates that holding anyone else as property is a crime, and that putting something on paper, stamping it with fancy seals, embellishing it with fancy legal language, and endorsing it with the signatures of people bearing impressive titles does not make it into law: it's still just a "sad little scrap of paper" in his eyes. He even goes so far as to say that men and women have the right to resist illegal laws, in what is undoubtedly among the most important sections of his argument, found on pages 27 and 28. There, he powerfully dismantles the counter-arguments that he anticipates from those who would argue that once something is "a law," it must be obeyed until it is repealed. If it were really true that an illegal or unconstitutional law must be obeyed until repealed, he reasons, then "there would therefore be no difference at all between a constitutional and an unconstitutional law, in respect to their binding force; and that would be equivalent to abolishing the constitution, and giving to the government unlimited power" (28). Those who would disagree with Lysander Spooner on this point are invited to participate in a mental experiment, in which they imagine that the president has signed a law saying that if you in any way hinder the search for an escaped slave, or in any way assist a person who has been designated a "slave" and who has run away and is hiding from the authorities, then you yourself are a criminal and can be subject to enormous fines and imprisonment. Note that this is not just a hypothetical scenario: the first and the thirteenth presidents of the United States each signed such a proposition into "law." Today, nobody reading this blog would likely argue that they would feel a moral duty to obey such a "law," or that they would have to actually support it until such time as they could eventually get it repealed through the same arduous process depicted in the Schoolhouse Rock video shown above. Nearly every man or woman would agree with Spooner that the institution of slavery and "laws" enforcing one person's ability to "own" another are not laws but rather outrageous crimes, and would reject the notion that writing such a "law" down on a piece of paper, stamping it with a pretty seal and adding some flowery signatures suddenly turns it into something that must be willingly and voluntarily obeyed until it can be debated and eventually repealed. Writing something on a piece of paper does not make it a law. But, if this is true, then what does make something a law? Lysander Spooner argued that the actions of men and women cannot actually make anything a law, but that there is already an immutable or unchangeable universal law which he called "Natural Law" or the "Science of Justice." He believed that human society should only enforce natural law, and not dream up additional or "artificial" laws, and that trying to add to or subtract from the natural law is as foolish as trying to add to or subtract from other natural laws, such as the law of gravity. He argued that men and women could voluntarily band together to help ensure compliance with this natural law among their group, but that they could not compel others to join that voluntary association. Even within such a voluntary association, he believed that people or groups could only rightly compel compliance with the natural law, which was generally extremely simple and basically entailed the command to "live honestly, hurt no one, and give everyone his or her due." In an 1882 publication entitled Natural Law; or The Science of Justice, Spooner set out to explain the concept of natural law. In it, he made a distinction between those things that everyone has a legal duty to either do or to refrain from doing, and which others can and must compel in others, and those things which everyone has a moral duty to do but which must be left up to each person's own judgment and which no one has the right or duty to compel. Below is a table based upon Spooner's 1882 text, generally following the order and wording of his argument: The left column (labeled "Legal Duty" and highlighted in yellow), in Spooner's view, constitutes those things which are part of the natural law, and can actually be the only things which anyone can rightfully use force to uphold. He says that everyone has a duty to refrain from injuring others, and that force may and must be used when someone sees someone else in the act of injuring someone else. Spooner further argues in that 1882 text that nearly everyone understands these natural law prohibitions and duties before they are even old enough to know that "three and three are six, or five and five ten" (9). The right column (labeled "Moral Duty" and highlighted in green), in Spooner's view, constitutes those things which we do have a moral duty to perform, but which no one else can compel us to do: we must judge the extent to which we are able to do those things, and how we wish to best accomplish them when we do decide to do them. Thus, in Spooner's view, any so-called law that goes beyond the legal duties in the left column (or, worse yet, directly contradicts and violates those legal duties, as did the Fugitive Slave Acts) is actually no law at all and it can and must be disobeyed as illegal and criminal, regardless of whether it was written down on paper using legal-sounding language and passed by men and women in fancy buildings and stamped with fancy stamps and inscribed with fancy signatures. At this point, the reader may be thinking that all of this is very nice, but what on earth does it have to do with the general subject matter covered in this blog? The answer is: everything. Because, as insightful thinkers such as Mark Passio have articulated, violations of natural law are so contrary to our innate understanding of right and wrong (remember that Spooner says we know it before we even know that 3 + 3 = 6) that artificial laws which violate natural law must always be dressed up with various symbols and word-formulas designed to convey legitimacy, and reinforced by systems of mind control by which men and women who should know that those violations are immoral can somehow be made to believe that those violations of natural law are instead right and good and deserving of support. Institutionalized violations of natural law are nearly always accompanied by powerful forms of illusion, or the creation of "false realities" that enable those violations to appear legitimate, and to get people to go along with them. Therefore, seeing through these false realities is of absolutely primary importance. This blog primarily examines false realities which can be seen operating all around us, including in the realm of conventional history as taught in all the institutions of academia and reinforced by the organs of the conventional media (see for example "Piercing the fog of deception that hides the contours of history" and also the two short videos entitled "The importance of challenging false narratives"). These false realities or false narratives which cause people to accept gross violations of natural law are operating today with just as much force as they were operating in Spooner's day -- perhaps even more so. False narratives assist in getting people to accept the premise that so-called "laws" permitting government surveillance of individual men and women at virtually any time and place are legitimate (see here and here). This is a violation of natural law in that it enables hidden enforcers and observers to treat individuals as criminals on the suspicion that they might do something to harm others, elevating some to the status of "prison guards" and demoting everyone else to the status of prisoners under constant suspicion and surveillance. False narratives convince people to accept the idea that men and women can and should be locked up and denied their freedom for possessing certain plants or mushrooms known to induce a state of ecstasy. This is a violation of natural law in that it uses force to prohibit behavior that in no way harms the person or property of another or infringes on another's rights. False narratives convince people to accept the idea that men and women representing the government and wearing military gear and driving military vehicles can point military weapons at people assembling in the streets to express themselves, or at people in their homes in a neighborhood where fugitives are supposedly hiding. These are clear violations of natural law in that such actions basically declare that force can be used against citizens whenever it is convenient for the government to say there is a need to do so, an idea which Spooner eloquently demolishes in pages 27 and 28 of his text against the Fugitive Slave Acts. In a passage labeled "Section IV" of his 1882 treatise on Natural Law, Spooner declares that the rights belonging to every human being by the unchangeable principle of justice "necessarily remain with him [or her] during life," and although these rights are "capable of being trampled upon" they are nevertheless "incapable of being blotted out, extinguished, annihilated, or separated from" each and every human being, and that there is no authority high enough to simply declare them null or void. False narratives have even apparently convinced some people that it is somehow excusable to cover up evidence of the potentially harmful effects of vaccines on certain children in order to support "herd immunity." All of the above examples, along with the many other violations of natural law currently taking place, are enabled and excused by a variety of false realities or false narratives, created and maintained in order to lend an air of legitimacy to these violations. So were many other horrendous violations of natural law which were enabled by false narratives and illusions throughout history, including the enslavement of Africans which Spooner argued against in the 1850s, to the destruction of Native American tribes in the western US after the end of the US Civil War and the seizure of their lands and their confinement to reservations or "agencies," to the seizure of the Hawaiian Islands and the Philippines in the years after that, and on and on right up to the present. All of the above examples were enabled by lies, illusions, and false narratives or false realities. For more on breaking through illusions and false realities, and creating new realities, see for example this previous post entitled "Jon Rappoport's talk on the trickster-god and creating reality." It is one of Lysander Spooner's singular contributions that he perceived and forcefully argued that a criminal "law" is no law at all, and that men and women have the right and the duty to treat it as such, and to inform others of their right to do the same. Putting something on paper doesn't make it a "law" -- even if it has been adorned with all the necessary stamps and signatures. As Spooner alludes in the writings linked above, the US Constitution as originally designed, and especially the Bill of Rights as originally conceived, were designed to safeguard natural-law rights in many ways, and to the extent that Schoolhouse Rock taught those principles to a new generation in the 1970s, it can be commended. Perhaps Spooner's arguments about an illegal law being no law at all could not really be expected to be squeezed into the "I'm Just a Bill" song. But Lysander Spooner's arguments deserve to be brought into the modern era, in much the same way that the creators of Schoolhouse Rock tried to speak to the younger generation of the 1970s using the language and imagery of the 1970s. Spooner's arguments on behalf of the individual's rights under natural law -- rights which could never be abridged by any authority -- and his arguments against the creation of arbitrary "laws" which everyone has to obey just because a legislature or a president gave them the title of a "law" deserve examination, consideration, and thoughtful debate today more than ever. And the false narratives supporting so-called laws which supposedly authorize some people to use violence against others, or to threaten violence against others, or to take away the freedom of others when those others have not done anything to harm anyone else's persons or property, must be shown to be the form of mind control that they are. No individuals or groups can give themselves the right to violate natural law and in doing so to infringe on anyone else's rights, simply by writing something down on a "sad little scrap of paper."

<urn:uuid:17474726-e53e-48c9-a980-028439f26526>

CC-MAIN-2018-13

http://www.starmythworld.com/mathisencorollary/2014/09/does-writing-something-on-piece-of.html

s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2018-13/segments/1521257647892.89/warc/CC-MAIN-20180322151300-20180322171300-00710.warc.gz

en

<urn:uuid:17474726-e53e-48c9-a980-028439f26526>_21

Lysander Spooner argued that the actions of men and women cannot actually make anything a law, but that there is already an immutable or unchangeable universal law which he called "Natural Law" or the "Science of Justice."

"Whew! You sure gotta climb a lot of steps to get to the Capitol Building here in Washington. Well I wonder who that sad little scrap of paper is?" And with those words began one of my childhood favorite Schoolhouse Rock videos, which used to be on television back in the early 1970s when I wasn't really old enough to have any idea what exactly they were all about, or why they would sometimes show up in between episodes of Superfriends, Speed Racer, or Sigmund and the Sea Monsters. In I'm just a bill," we witness the progress by which "that sad little scrap of paper" receives a fancy seal and a president's signature and becomes a law ("He signed ya, Bill: Now you're a Law!"). Although the video does an admirable job depicting some of the checks and balances contained in the US Constitution, through which the members of both houses of the legislature must agree to send the bill forward to the executive branch for final approval before any proposed bill is signed into law, it does tend to convey the impression that any "good idea" can be transformed into "a Law" through the magical process of being debated by important-looking men in impressive-looking buildings with lots of steps and Greek columns, on top of high hills (and filled with long rows of impassive US Marines in dress blue uniforms, and statues of distinguished statesmen from previous generations), signed by the president using a fountain pen, and affixed with a shiny-looking seal with a ribbon. Nineteenth-century abolitionist, legal scholar and philosopher Lysander Spooner (1808 - 1887) would vehemently disagree that something becomes "a law" just because it goes through the above process and receives a president's signature and a fancy stamp. In fact, he published a treatise in 1850 entitled A Defence for Fugitive Slaves against the Acts of Congress of February 12, 1793 and September 18, 1850, in which he argued that an illegal law is no law at all, and confers no obligation on anyone to obey it, nor any authority to anyone desiring to enforce it. He begins his treatise with the complete copy of each of the two acts in question, both of which were considered "law" in 1850, compelling men or women who knew of a "fugitive slave" to help catch that "fugitive slave" or face penalties including fines and imprisonment (the term "slave" is put in quotation marks here because Spooner argues that no person can ever own another person, and that there actually is no such thing as a legal slave or the legal condition of slavery, all so-called "laws" which make one person the property of another being illegal and criminal). Those two so-called laws (the Fugitive Slave Act of 1793 and the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850) were both signed by the presidents of their day, George Washington in the first instance and Millard Fillmore in the second (they also bear the signatures of the respective Speakers of the House and Presidents of the Senate). But these signatures do not make them true laws, according to Spooner's arguments. Spooner demonstrates that holding anyone else as property is a crime, and that putting something on paper, stamping it with fancy seals, embellishing it with fancy legal language, and endorsing it with the signatures of people bearing impressive titles does not make it into law: it's still just a "sad little scrap of paper" in his eyes. He even goes so far as to say that men and women have the right to resist illegal laws, in what is undoubtedly among the most important sections of his argument, found on pages 27 and 28. There, he powerfully dismantles the counter-arguments that he anticipates from those who would argue that once something is "a law," it must be obeyed until it is repealed. If it were really true that an illegal or unconstitutional law must be obeyed until repealed, he reasons, then "there would therefore be no difference at all between a constitutional and an unconstitutional law, in respect to their binding force; and that would be equivalent to abolishing the constitution, and giving to the government unlimited power" (28). Those who would disagree with Lysander Spooner on this point are invited to participate in a mental experiment, in which they imagine that the president has signed a law saying that if you in any way hinder the search for an escaped slave, or in any way assist a person who has been designated a "slave" and who has run away and is hiding from the authorities, then you yourself are a criminal and can be subject to enormous fines and imprisonment. Note that this is not just a hypothetical scenario: the first and the thirteenth presidents of the United States each signed such a proposition into "law." Today, nobody reading this blog would likely argue that they would feel a moral duty to obey such a "law," or that they would have to actually support it until such time as they could eventually get it repealed through the same arduous process depicted in the Schoolhouse Rock video shown above. Nearly every man or woman would agree with Spooner that the institution of slavery and "laws" enforcing one person's ability to "own" another are not laws but rather outrageous crimes, and would reject the notion that writing such a "law" down on a piece of paper, stamping it with a pretty seal and adding some flowery signatures suddenly turns it into something that must be willingly and voluntarily obeyed until it can be debated and eventually repealed. Writing something on a piece of paper does not make it a law. But, if this is true, then what does make something a law? Lysander Spooner argued that the actions of men and women cannot actually make anything a law, but that there is already an immutable or unchangeable universal law which he called "Natural Law" or the "Science of Justice." He believed that human society should only enforce natural law, and not dream up additional or "artificial" laws, and that trying to add to or subtract from the natural law is as foolish as trying to add to or subtract from other natural laws, such as the law of gravity. He argued that men and women could voluntarily band together to help ensure compliance with this natural law among their group, but that they could not compel others to join that voluntary association. Even within such a voluntary association, he believed that people or groups could only rightly compel compliance with the natural law, which was generally extremely simple and basically entailed the command to "live honestly, hurt no one, and give everyone his or her due." In an 1882 publication entitled Natural Law; or The Science of Justice, Spooner set out to explain the concept of natural law. In it, he made a distinction between those things that everyone has a legal duty to either do or to refrain from doing, and which others can and must compel in others, and those things which everyone has a moral duty to do but which must be left up to each person's own judgment and which no one has the right or duty to compel. Below is a table based upon Spooner's 1882 text, generally following the order and wording of his argument: The left column (labeled "Legal Duty" and highlighted in yellow), in Spooner's view, constitutes those things which are part of the natural law, and can actually be the only things which anyone can rightfully use force to uphold. He says that everyone has a duty to refrain from injuring others, and that force may and must be used when someone sees someone else in the act of injuring someone else. Spooner further argues in that 1882 text that nearly everyone understands these natural law prohibitions and duties before they are even old enough to know that "three and three are six, or five and five ten" (9). The right column (labeled "Moral Duty" and highlighted in green), in Spooner's view, constitutes those things which we do have a moral duty to perform, but which no one else can compel us to do: we must judge the extent to which we are able to do those things, and how we wish to best accomplish them when we do decide to do them. Thus, in Spooner's view, any so-called law that goes beyond the legal duties in the left column (or, worse yet, directly contradicts and violates those legal duties, as did the Fugitive Slave Acts) is actually no law at all and it can and must be disobeyed as illegal and criminal, regardless of whether it was written down on paper using legal-sounding language and passed by men and women in fancy buildings and stamped with fancy stamps and inscribed with fancy signatures. At this point, the reader may be thinking that all of this is very nice, but what on earth does it have to do with the general subject matter covered in this blog? The answer is: everything. Because, as insightful thinkers such as Mark Passio have articulated, violations of natural law are so contrary to our innate understanding of right and wrong (remember that Spooner says we know it before we even know that 3 + 3 = 6) that artificial laws which violate natural law must always be dressed up with various symbols and word-formulas designed to convey legitimacy, and reinforced by systems of mind control by which men and women who should know that those violations are immoral can somehow be made to believe that those violations of natural law are instead right and good and deserving of support. Institutionalized violations of natural law are nearly always accompanied by powerful forms of illusion, or the creation of "false realities" that enable those violations to appear legitimate, and to get people to go along with them. Therefore, seeing through these false realities is of absolutely primary importance. This blog primarily examines false realities which can be seen operating all around us, including in the realm of conventional history as taught in all the institutions of academia and reinforced by the organs of the conventional media (see for example "Piercing the fog of deception that hides the contours of history" and also the two short videos entitled "The importance of challenging false narratives"). These false realities or false narratives which cause people to accept gross violations of natural law are operating today with just as much force as they were operating in Spooner's day -- perhaps even more so. False narratives assist in getting people to accept the premise that so-called "laws" permitting government surveillance of individual men and women at virtually any time and place are legitimate (see here and here). This is a violation of natural law in that it enables hidden enforcers and observers to treat individuals as criminals on the suspicion that they might do something to harm others, elevating some to the status of "prison guards" and demoting everyone else to the status of prisoners under constant suspicion and surveillance. False narratives convince people to accept the idea that men and women can and should be locked up and denied their freedom for possessing certain plants or mushrooms known to induce a state of ecstasy. This is a violation of natural law in that it uses force to prohibit behavior that in no way harms the person or property of another or infringes on another's rights. False narratives convince people to accept the idea that men and women representing the government and wearing military gear and driving military vehicles can point military weapons at people assembling in the streets to express themselves, or at people in their homes in a neighborhood where fugitives are supposedly hiding. These are clear violations of natural law in that such actions basically declare that force can be used against citizens whenever it is convenient for the government to say there is a need to do so, an idea which Spooner eloquently demolishes in pages 27 and 28 of his text against the Fugitive Slave Acts. In a passage labeled "Section IV" of his 1882 treatise on Natural Law, Spooner declares that the rights belonging to every human being by the unchangeable principle of justice "necessarily remain with him [or her] during life," and although these rights are "capable of being trampled upon" they are nevertheless "incapable of being blotted out, extinguished, annihilated, or separated from" each and every human being, and that there is no authority high enough to simply declare them null or void. False narratives have even apparently convinced some people that it is somehow excusable to cover up evidence of the potentially harmful effects of vaccines on certain children in order to support "herd immunity." All of the above examples, along with the many other violations of natural law currently taking place, are enabled and excused by a variety of false realities or false narratives, created and maintained in order to lend an air of legitimacy to these violations. So were many other horrendous violations of natural law which were enabled by false narratives and illusions throughout history, including the enslavement of Africans which Spooner argued against in the 1850s, to the destruction of Native American tribes in the western US after the end of the US Civil War and the seizure of their lands and their confinement to reservations or "agencies," to the seizure of the Hawaiian Islands and the Philippines in the years after that, and on and on right up to the present. All of the above examples were enabled by lies, illusions, and false narratives or false realities. For more on breaking through illusions and false realities, and creating new realities, see for example this previous post entitled "Jon Rappoport's talk on the trickster-god and creating reality." It is one of Lysander Spooner's singular contributions that he perceived and forcefully argued that a criminal "law" is no law at all, and that men and women have the right and the duty to treat it as such, and to inform others of their right to do the same. Putting something on paper doesn't make it a "law" -- even if it has been adorned with all the necessary stamps and signatures. As Spooner alludes in the writings linked above, the US Constitution as originally designed, and especially the Bill of Rights as originally conceived, were designed to safeguard natural-law rights in many ways, and to the extent that Schoolhouse Rock taught those principles to a new generation in the 1970s, it can be commended. Perhaps Spooner's arguments about an illegal law being no law at all could not really be expected to be squeezed into the "I'm Just a Bill" song. But Lysander Spooner's arguments deserve to be brought into the modern era, in much the same way that the creators of Schoolhouse Rock tried to speak to the younger generation of the 1970s using the language and imagery of the 1970s. Spooner's arguments on behalf of the individual's rights under natural law -- rights which could never be abridged by any authority -- and his arguments against the creation of arbitrary "laws" which everyone has to obey just because a legislature or a president gave them the title of a "law" deserve examination, consideration, and thoughtful debate today more than ever. And the false narratives supporting so-called laws which supposedly authorize some people to use violence against others, or to threaten violence against others, or to take away the freedom of others when those others have not done anything to harm anyone else's persons or property, must be shown to be the form of mind control that they are. No individuals or groups can give themselves the right to violate natural law and in doing so to infringe on anyone else's rights, simply by writing something down on a "sad little scrap of paper."

<urn:uuid:17474726-e53e-48c9-a980-028439f26526>

CC-MAIN-2018-13

http://www.starmythworld.com/mathisencorollary/2014/09/does-writing-something-on-piece-of.html

s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2018-13/segments/1521257647892.89/warc/CC-MAIN-20180322151300-20180322171300-00710.warc.gz

en

<urn:uuid:17474726-e53e-48c9-a980-028439f26526>_22

He believed that human society should only enforce natural law, and not dream up additional or "artificial" laws, and that trying to add to or subtract from the natural law is as foolish as trying to add to or subtract from other natural laws, such as the law of gravity.

"Whew! You sure gotta climb a lot of steps to get to the Capitol Building here in Washington. Well I wonder who that sad little scrap of paper is?" And with those words began one of my childhood favorite Schoolhouse Rock videos, which used to be on television back in the early 1970s when I wasn't really old enough to have any idea what exactly they were all about, or why they would sometimes show up in between episodes of Superfriends, Speed Racer, or Sigmund and the Sea Monsters. In I'm just a bill," we witness the progress by which "that sad little scrap of paper" receives a fancy seal and a president's signature and becomes a law ("He signed ya, Bill: Now you're a Law!"). Although the video does an admirable job depicting some of the checks and balances contained in the US Constitution, through which the members of both houses of the legislature must agree to send the bill forward to the executive branch for final approval before any proposed bill is signed into law, it does tend to convey the impression that any "good idea" can be transformed into "a Law" through the magical process of being debated by important-looking men in impressive-looking buildings with lots of steps and Greek columns, on top of high hills (and filled with long rows of impassive US Marines in dress blue uniforms, and statues of distinguished statesmen from previous generations), signed by the president using a fountain pen, and affixed with a shiny-looking seal with a ribbon. Nineteenth-century abolitionist, legal scholar and philosopher Lysander Spooner (1808 - 1887) would vehemently disagree that something becomes "a law" just because it goes through the above process and receives a president's signature and a fancy stamp. In fact, he published a treatise in 1850 entitled A Defence for Fugitive Slaves against the Acts of Congress of February 12, 1793 and September 18, 1850, in which he argued that an illegal law is no law at all, and confers no obligation on anyone to obey it, nor any authority to anyone desiring to enforce it. He begins his treatise with the complete copy of each of the two acts in question, both of which were considered "law" in 1850, compelling men or women who knew of a "fugitive slave" to help catch that "fugitive slave" or face penalties including fines and imprisonment (the term "slave" is put in quotation marks here because Spooner argues that no person can ever own another person, and that there actually is no such thing as a legal slave or the legal condition of slavery, all so-called "laws" which make one person the property of another being illegal and criminal). Those two so-called laws (the Fugitive Slave Act of 1793 and the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850) were both signed by the presidents of their day, George Washington in the first instance and Millard Fillmore in the second (they also bear the signatures of the respective Speakers of the House and Presidents of the Senate). But these signatures do not make them true laws, according to Spooner's arguments. Spooner demonstrates that holding anyone else as property is a crime, and that putting something on paper, stamping it with fancy seals, embellishing it with fancy legal language, and endorsing it with the signatures of people bearing impressive titles does not make it into law: it's still just a "sad little scrap of paper" in his eyes. He even goes so far as to say that men and women have the right to resist illegal laws, in what is undoubtedly among the most important sections of his argument, found on pages 27 and 28. There, he powerfully dismantles the counter-arguments that he anticipates from those who would argue that once something is "a law," it must be obeyed until it is repealed. If it were really true that an illegal or unconstitutional law must be obeyed until repealed, he reasons, then "there would therefore be no difference at all between a constitutional and an unconstitutional law, in respect to their binding force; and that would be equivalent to abolishing the constitution, and giving to the government unlimited power" (28). Those who would disagree with Lysander Spooner on this point are invited to participate in a mental experiment, in which they imagine that the president has signed a law saying that if you in any way hinder the search for an escaped slave, or in any way assist a person who has been designated a "slave" and who has run away and is hiding from the authorities, then you yourself are a criminal and can be subject to enormous fines and imprisonment. Note that this is not just a hypothetical scenario: the first and the thirteenth presidents of the United States each signed such a proposition into "law." Today, nobody reading this blog would likely argue that they would feel a moral duty to obey such a "law," or that they would have to actually support it until such time as they could eventually get it repealed through the same arduous process depicted in the Schoolhouse Rock video shown above. Nearly every man or woman would agree with Spooner that the institution of slavery and "laws" enforcing one person's ability to "own" another are not laws but rather outrageous crimes, and would reject the notion that writing such a "law" down on a piece of paper, stamping it with a pretty seal and adding some flowery signatures suddenly turns it into something that must be willingly and voluntarily obeyed until it can be debated and eventually repealed. Writing something on a piece of paper does not make it a law. But, if this is true, then what does make something a law? Lysander Spooner argued that the actions of men and women cannot actually make anything a law, but that there is already an immutable or unchangeable universal law which he called "Natural Law" or the "Science of Justice." He believed that human society should only enforce natural law, and not dream up additional or "artificial" laws, and that trying to add to or subtract from the natural law is as foolish as trying to add to or subtract from other natural laws, such as the law of gravity. He argued that men and women could voluntarily band together to help ensure compliance with this natural law among their group, but that they could not compel others to join that voluntary association. Even within such a voluntary association, he believed that people or groups could only rightly compel compliance with the natural law, which was generally extremely simple and basically entailed the command to "live honestly, hurt no one, and give everyone his or her due." In an 1882 publication entitled Natural Law; or The Science of Justice, Spooner set out to explain the concept of natural law. In it, he made a distinction between those things that everyone has a legal duty to either do or to refrain from doing, and which others can and must compel in others, and those things which everyone has a moral duty to do but which must be left up to each person's own judgment and which no one has the right or duty to compel. Below is a table based upon Spooner's 1882 text, generally following the order and wording of his argument: The left column (labeled "Legal Duty" and highlighted in yellow), in Spooner's view, constitutes those things which are part of the natural law, and can actually be the only things which anyone can rightfully use force to uphold. He says that everyone has a duty to refrain from injuring others, and that force may and must be used when someone sees someone else in the act of injuring someone else. Spooner further argues in that 1882 text that nearly everyone understands these natural law prohibitions and duties before they are even old enough to know that "three and three are six, or five and five ten" (9). The right column (labeled "Moral Duty" and highlighted in green), in Spooner's view, constitutes those things which we do have a moral duty to perform, but which no one else can compel us to do: we must judge the extent to which we are able to do those things, and how we wish to best accomplish them when we do decide to do them. Thus, in Spooner's view, any so-called law that goes beyond the legal duties in the left column (or, worse yet, directly contradicts and violates those legal duties, as did the Fugitive Slave Acts) is actually no law at all and it can and must be disobeyed as illegal and criminal, regardless of whether it was written down on paper using legal-sounding language and passed by men and women in fancy buildings and stamped with fancy stamps and inscribed with fancy signatures. At this point, the reader may be thinking that all of this is very nice, but what on earth does it have to do with the general subject matter covered in this blog? The answer is: everything. Because, as insightful thinkers such as Mark Passio have articulated, violations of natural law are so contrary to our innate understanding of right and wrong (remember that Spooner says we know it before we even know that 3 + 3 = 6) that artificial laws which violate natural law must always be dressed up with various symbols and word-formulas designed to convey legitimacy, and reinforced by systems of mind control by which men and women who should know that those violations are immoral can somehow be made to believe that those violations of natural law are instead right and good and deserving of support. Institutionalized violations of natural law are nearly always accompanied by powerful forms of illusion, or the creation of "false realities" that enable those violations to appear legitimate, and to get people to go along with them. Therefore, seeing through these false realities is of absolutely primary importance. This blog primarily examines false realities which can be seen operating all around us, including in the realm of conventional history as taught in all the institutions of academia and reinforced by the organs of the conventional media (see for example "Piercing the fog of deception that hides the contours of history" and also the two short videos entitled "The importance of challenging false narratives"). These false realities or false narratives which cause people to accept gross violations of natural law are operating today with just as much force as they were operating in Spooner's day -- perhaps even more so. False narratives assist in getting people to accept the premise that so-called "laws" permitting government surveillance of individual men and women at virtually any time and place are legitimate (see here and here). This is a violation of natural law in that it enables hidden enforcers and observers to treat individuals as criminals on the suspicion that they might do something to harm others, elevating some to the status of "prison guards" and demoting everyone else to the status of prisoners under constant suspicion and surveillance. False narratives convince people to accept the idea that men and women can and should be locked up and denied their freedom for possessing certain plants or mushrooms known to induce a state of ecstasy. This is a violation of natural law in that it uses force to prohibit behavior that in no way harms the person or property of another or infringes on another's rights. False narratives convince people to accept the idea that men and women representing the government and wearing military gear and driving military vehicles can point military weapons at people assembling in the streets to express themselves, or at people in their homes in a neighborhood where fugitives are supposedly hiding. These are clear violations of natural law in that such actions basically declare that force can be used against citizens whenever it is convenient for the government to say there is a need to do so, an idea which Spooner eloquently demolishes in pages 27 and 28 of his text against the Fugitive Slave Acts. In a passage labeled "Section IV" of his 1882 treatise on Natural Law, Spooner declares that the rights belonging to every human being by the unchangeable principle of justice "necessarily remain with him [or her] during life," and although these rights are "capable of being trampled upon" they are nevertheless "incapable of being blotted out, extinguished, annihilated, or separated from" each and every human being, and that there is no authority high enough to simply declare them null or void. False narratives have even apparently convinced some people that it is somehow excusable to cover up evidence of the potentially harmful effects of vaccines on certain children in order to support "herd immunity." All of the above examples, along with the many other violations of natural law currently taking place, are enabled and excused by a variety of false realities or false narratives, created and maintained in order to lend an air of legitimacy to these violations. So were many other horrendous violations of natural law which were enabled by false narratives and illusions throughout history, including the enslavement of Africans which Spooner argued against in the 1850s, to the destruction of Native American tribes in the western US after the end of the US Civil War and the seizure of their lands and their confinement to reservations or "agencies," to the seizure of the Hawaiian Islands and the Philippines in the years after that, and on and on right up to the present. All of the above examples were enabled by lies, illusions, and false narratives or false realities. For more on breaking through illusions and false realities, and creating new realities, see for example this previous post entitled "Jon Rappoport's talk on the trickster-god and creating reality." It is one of Lysander Spooner's singular contributions that he perceived and forcefully argued that a criminal "law" is no law at all, and that men and women have the right and the duty to treat it as such, and to inform others of their right to do the same. Putting something on paper doesn't make it a "law" -- even if it has been adorned with all the necessary stamps and signatures. As Spooner alludes in the writings linked above, the US Constitution as originally designed, and especially the Bill of Rights as originally conceived, were designed to safeguard natural-law rights in many ways, and to the extent that Schoolhouse Rock taught those principles to a new generation in the 1970s, it can be commended. Perhaps Spooner's arguments about an illegal law being no law at all could not really be expected to be squeezed into the "I'm Just a Bill" song. But Lysander Spooner's arguments deserve to be brought into the modern era, in much the same way that the creators of Schoolhouse Rock tried to speak to the younger generation of the 1970s using the language and imagery of the 1970s. Spooner's arguments on behalf of the individual's rights under natural law -- rights which could never be abridged by any authority -- and his arguments against the creation of arbitrary "laws" which everyone has to obey just because a legislature or a president gave them the title of a "law" deserve examination, consideration, and thoughtful debate today more than ever. And the false narratives supporting so-called laws which supposedly authorize some people to use violence against others, or to threaten violence against others, or to take away the freedom of others when those others have not done anything to harm anyone else's persons or property, must be shown to be the form of mind control that they are. No individuals or groups can give themselves the right to violate natural law and in doing so to infringe on anyone else's rights, simply by writing something down on a "sad little scrap of paper."

<urn:uuid:17474726-e53e-48c9-a980-028439f26526>

CC-MAIN-2018-13

http://www.starmythworld.com/mathisencorollary/2014/09/does-writing-something-on-piece-of.html

s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2018-13/segments/1521257647892.89/warc/CC-MAIN-20180322151300-20180322171300-00710.warc.gz

en

<urn:uuid:17474726-e53e-48c9-a980-028439f26526>_23

He argued that men and women could voluntarily band together to help ensure compliance with this natural law among their group, but that they could not compel others to join that voluntary association.

"Whew! You sure gotta climb a lot of steps to get to the Capitol Building here in Washington. Well I wonder who that sad little scrap of paper is?" And with those words began one of my childhood favorite Schoolhouse Rock videos, which used to be on television back in the early 1970s when I wasn't really old enough to have any idea what exactly they were all about, or why they would sometimes show up in between episodes of Superfriends, Speed Racer, or Sigmund and the Sea Monsters. In I'm just a bill," we witness the progress by which "that sad little scrap of paper" receives a fancy seal and a president's signature and becomes a law ("He signed ya, Bill: Now you're a Law!"). Although the video does an admirable job depicting some of the checks and balances contained in the US Constitution, through which the members of both houses of the legislature must agree to send the bill forward to the executive branch for final approval before any proposed bill is signed into law, it does tend to convey the impression that any "good idea" can be transformed into "a Law" through the magical process of being debated by important-looking men in impressive-looking buildings with lots of steps and Greek columns, on top of high hills (and filled with long rows of impassive US Marines in dress blue uniforms, and statues of distinguished statesmen from previous generations), signed by the president using a fountain pen, and affixed with a shiny-looking seal with a ribbon. Nineteenth-century abolitionist, legal scholar and philosopher Lysander Spooner (1808 - 1887) would vehemently disagree that something becomes "a law" just because it goes through the above process and receives a president's signature and a fancy stamp. In fact, he published a treatise in 1850 entitled A Defence for Fugitive Slaves against the Acts of Congress of February 12, 1793 and September 18, 1850, in which he argued that an illegal law is no law at all, and confers no obligation on anyone to obey it, nor any authority to anyone desiring to enforce it. He begins his treatise with the complete copy of each of the two acts in question, both of which were considered "law" in 1850, compelling men or women who knew of a "fugitive slave" to help catch that "fugitive slave" or face penalties including fines and imprisonment (the term "slave" is put in quotation marks here because Spooner argues that no person can ever own another person, and that there actually is no such thing as a legal slave or the legal condition of slavery, all so-called "laws" which make one person the property of another being illegal and criminal). Those two so-called laws (the Fugitive Slave Act of 1793 and the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850) were both signed by the presidents of their day, George Washington in the first instance and Millard Fillmore in the second (they also bear the signatures of the respective Speakers of the House and Presidents of the Senate). But these signatures do not make them true laws, according to Spooner's arguments. Spooner demonstrates that holding anyone else as property is a crime, and that putting something on paper, stamping it with fancy seals, embellishing it with fancy legal language, and endorsing it with the signatures of people bearing impressive titles does not make it into law: it's still just a "sad little scrap of paper" in his eyes. He even goes so far as to say that men and women have the right to resist illegal laws, in what is undoubtedly among the most important sections of his argument, found on pages 27 and 28. There, he powerfully dismantles the counter-arguments that he anticipates from those who would argue that once something is "a law," it must be obeyed until it is repealed. If it were really true that an illegal or unconstitutional law must be obeyed until repealed, he reasons, then "there would therefore be no difference at all between a constitutional and an unconstitutional law, in respect to their binding force; and that would be equivalent to abolishing the constitution, and giving to the government unlimited power" (28). Those who would disagree with Lysander Spooner on this point are invited to participate in a mental experiment, in which they imagine that the president has signed a law saying that if you in any way hinder the search for an escaped slave, or in any way assist a person who has been designated a "slave" and who has run away and is hiding from the authorities, then you yourself are a criminal and can be subject to enormous fines and imprisonment. Note that this is not just a hypothetical scenario: the first and the thirteenth presidents of the United States each signed such a proposition into "law." Today, nobody reading this blog would likely argue that they would feel a moral duty to obey such a "law," or that they would have to actually support it until such time as they could eventually get it repealed through the same arduous process depicted in the Schoolhouse Rock video shown above. Nearly every man or woman would agree with Spooner that the institution of slavery and "laws" enforcing one person's ability to "own" another are not laws but rather outrageous crimes, and would reject the notion that writing such a "law" down on a piece of paper, stamping it with a pretty seal and adding some flowery signatures suddenly turns it into something that must be willingly and voluntarily obeyed until it can be debated and eventually repealed. Writing something on a piece of paper does not make it a law. But, if this is true, then what does make something a law? Lysander Spooner argued that the actions of men and women cannot actually make anything a law, but that there is already an immutable or unchangeable universal law which he called "Natural Law" or the "Science of Justice." He believed that human society should only enforce natural law, and not dream up additional or "artificial" laws, and that trying to add to or subtract from the natural law is as foolish as trying to add to or subtract from other natural laws, such as the law of gravity. He argued that men and women could voluntarily band together to help ensure compliance with this natural law among their group, but that they could not compel others to join that voluntary association. Even within such a voluntary association, he believed that people or groups could only rightly compel compliance with the natural law, which was generally extremely simple and basically entailed the command to "live honestly, hurt no one, and give everyone his or her due." In an 1882 publication entitled Natural Law; or The Science of Justice, Spooner set out to explain the concept of natural law. In it, he made a distinction between those things that everyone has a legal duty to either do or to refrain from doing, and which others can and must compel in others, and those things which everyone has a moral duty to do but which must be left up to each person's own judgment and which no one has the right or duty to compel. Below is a table based upon Spooner's 1882 text, generally following the order and wording of his argument: The left column (labeled "Legal Duty" and highlighted in yellow), in Spooner's view, constitutes those things which are part of the natural law, and can actually be the only things which anyone can rightfully use force to uphold. He says that everyone has a duty to refrain from injuring others, and that force may and must be used when someone sees someone else in the act of injuring someone else. Spooner further argues in that 1882 text that nearly everyone understands these natural law prohibitions and duties before they are even old enough to know that "three and three are six, or five and five ten" (9). The right column (labeled "Moral Duty" and highlighted in green), in Spooner's view, constitutes those things which we do have a moral duty to perform, but which no one else can compel us to do: we must judge the extent to which we are able to do those things, and how we wish to best accomplish them when we do decide to do them. Thus, in Spooner's view, any so-called law that goes beyond the legal duties in the left column (or, worse yet, directly contradicts and violates those legal duties, as did the Fugitive Slave Acts) is actually no law at all and it can and must be disobeyed as illegal and criminal, regardless of whether it was written down on paper using legal-sounding language and passed by men and women in fancy buildings and stamped with fancy stamps and inscribed with fancy signatures. At this point, the reader may be thinking that all of this is very nice, but what on earth does it have to do with the general subject matter covered in this blog? The answer is: everything. Because, as insightful thinkers such as Mark Passio have articulated, violations of natural law are so contrary to our innate understanding of right and wrong (remember that Spooner says we know it before we even know that 3 + 3 = 6) that artificial laws which violate natural law must always be dressed up with various symbols and word-formulas designed to convey legitimacy, and reinforced by systems of mind control by which men and women who should know that those violations are immoral can somehow be made to believe that those violations of natural law are instead right and good and deserving of support. Institutionalized violations of natural law are nearly always accompanied by powerful forms of illusion, or the creation of "false realities" that enable those violations to appear legitimate, and to get people to go along with them. Therefore, seeing through these false realities is of absolutely primary importance. This blog primarily examines false realities which can be seen operating all around us, including in the realm of conventional history as taught in all the institutions of academia and reinforced by the organs of the conventional media (see for example "Piercing the fog of deception that hides the contours of history" and also the two short videos entitled "The importance of challenging false narratives"). These false realities or false narratives which cause people to accept gross violations of natural law are operating today with just as much force as they were operating in Spooner's day -- perhaps even more so. False narratives assist in getting people to accept the premise that so-called "laws" permitting government surveillance of individual men and women at virtually any time and place are legitimate (see here and here). This is a violation of natural law in that it enables hidden enforcers and observers to treat individuals as criminals on the suspicion that they might do something to harm others, elevating some to the status of "prison guards" and demoting everyone else to the status of prisoners under constant suspicion and surveillance. False narratives convince people to accept the idea that men and women can and should be locked up and denied their freedom for possessing certain plants or mushrooms known to induce a state of ecstasy. This is a violation of natural law in that it uses force to prohibit behavior that in no way harms the person or property of another or infringes on another's rights. False narratives convince people to accept the idea that men and women representing the government and wearing military gear and driving military vehicles can point military weapons at people assembling in the streets to express themselves, or at people in their homes in a neighborhood where fugitives are supposedly hiding. These are clear violations of natural law in that such actions basically declare that force can be used against citizens whenever it is convenient for the government to say there is a need to do so, an idea which Spooner eloquently demolishes in pages 27 and 28 of his text against the Fugitive Slave Acts. In a passage labeled "Section IV" of his 1882 treatise on Natural Law, Spooner declares that the rights belonging to every human being by the unchangeable principle of justice "necessarily remain with him [or her] during life," and although these rights are "capable of being trampled upon" they are nevertheless "incapable of being blotted out, extinguished, annihilated, or separated from" each and every human being, and that there is no authority high enough to simply declare them null or void. False narratives have even apparently convinced some people that it is somehow excusable to cover up evidence of the potentially harmful effects of vaccines on certain children in order to support "herd immunity." All of the above examples, along with the many other violations of natural law currently taking place, are enabled and excused by a variety of false realities or false narratives, created and maintained in order to lend an air of legitimacy to these violations. So were many other horrendous violations of natural law which were enabled by false narratives and illusions throughout history, including the enslavement of Africans which Spooner argued against in the 1850s, to the destruction of Native American tribes in the western US after the end of the US Civil War and the seizure of their lands and their confinement to reservations or "agencies," to the seizure of the Hawaiian Islands and the Philippines in the years after that, and on and on right up to the present. All of the above examples were enabled by lies, illusions, and false narratives or false realities. For more on breaking through illusions and false realities, and creating new realities, see for example this previous post entitled "Jon Rappoport's talk on the trickster-god and creating reality." It is one of Lysander Spooner's singular contributions that he perceived and forcefully argued that a criminal "law" is no law at all, and that men and women have the right and the duty to treat it as such, and to inform others of their right to do the same. Putting something on paper doesn't make it a "law" -- even if it has been adorned with all the necessary stamps and signatures. As Spooner alludes in the writings linked above, the US Constitution as originally designed, and especially the Bill of Rights as originally conceived, were designed to safeguard natural-law rights in many ways, and to the extent that Schoolhouse Rock taught those principles to a new generation in the 1970s, it can be commended. Perhaps Spooner's arguments about an illegal law being no law at all could not really be expected to be squeezed into the "I'm Just a Bill" song. But Lysander Spooner's arguments deserve to be brought into the modern era, in much the same way that the creators of Schoolhouse Rock tried to speak to the younger generation of the 1970s using the language and imagery of the 1970s. Spooner's arguments on behalf of the individual's rights under natural law -- rights which could never be abridged by any authority -- and his arguments against the creation of arbitrary "laws" which everyone has to obey just because a legislature or a president gave them the title of a "law" deserve examination, consideration, and thoughtful debate today more than ever. And the false narratives supporting so-called laws which supposedly authorize some people to use violence against others, or to threaten violence against others, or to take away the freedom of others when those others have not done anything to harm anyone else's persons or property, must be shown to be the form of mind control that they are. No individuals or groups can give themselves the right to violate natural law and in doing so to infringe on anyone else's rights, simply by writing something down on a "sad little scrap of paper."

<urn:uuid:17474726-e53e-48c9-a980-028439f26526>

CC-MAIN-2018-13

http://www.starmythworld.com/mathisencorollary/2014/09/does-writing-something-on-piece-of.html

s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2018-13/segments/1521257647892.89/warc/CC-MAIN-20180322151300-20180322171300-00710.warc.gz

en

<urn:uuid:17474726-e53e-48c9-a980-028439f26526>_24

Even within such a voluntary association, he believed that people or groups could only rightly compel compliance with the natural law, which was generally extremely simple and basically entailed the command to "live honestly, hurt no one, and give everyone his or her due."

"Whew! You sure gotta climb a lot of steps to get to the Capitol Building here in Washington. Well I wonder who that sad little scrap of paper is?" And with those words began one of my childhood favorite Schoolhouse Rock videos, which used to be on television back in the early 1970s when I wasn't really old enough to have any idea what exactly they were all about, or why they would sometimes show up in between episodes of Superfriends, Speed Racer, or Sigmund and the Sea Monsters. In I'm just a bill," we witness the progress by which "that sad little scrap of paper" receives a fancy seal and a president's signature and becomes a law ("He signed ya, Bill: Now you're a Law!"). Although the video does an admirable job depicting some of the checks and balances contained in the US Constitution, through which the members of both houses of the legislature must agree to send the bill forward to the executive branch for final approval before any proposed bill is signed into law, it does tend to convey the impression that any "good idea" can be transformed into "a Law" through the magical process of being debated by important-looking men in impressive-looking buildings with lots of steps and Greek columns, on top of high hills (and filled with long rows of impassive US Marines in dress blue uniforms, and statues of distinguished statesmen from previous generations), signed by the president using a fountain pen, and affixed with a shiny-looking seal with a ribbon. Nineteenth-century abolitionist, legal scholar and philosopher Lysander Spooner (1808 - 1887) would vehemently disagree that something becomes "a law" just because it goes through the above process and receives a president's signature and a fancy stamp. In fact, he published a treatise in 1850 entitled A Defence for Fugitive Slaves against the Acts of Congress of February 12, 1793 and September 18, 1850, in which he argued that an illegal law is no law at all, and confers no obligation on anyone to obey it, nor any authority to anyone desiring to enforce it. He begins his treatise with the complete copy of each of the two acts in question, both of which were considered "law" in 1850, compelling men or women who knew of a "fugitive slave" to help catch that "fugitive slave" or face penalties including fines and imprisonment (the term "slave" is put in quotation marks here because Spooner argues that no person can ever own another person, and that there actually is no such thing as a legal slave or the legal condition of slavery, all so-called "laws" which make one person the property of another being illegal and criminal). Those two so-called laws (the Fugitive Slave Act of 1793 and the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850) were both signed by the presidents of their day, George Washington in the first instance and Millard Fillmore in the second (they also bear the signatures of the respective Speakers of the House and Presidents of the Senate). But these signatures do not make them true laws, according to Spooner's arguments. Spooner demonstrates that holding anyone else as property is a crime, and that putting something on paper, stamping it with fancy seals, embellishing it with fancy legal language, and endorsing it with the signatures of people bearing impressive titles does not make it into law: it's still just a "sad little scrap of paper" in his eyes. He even goes so far as to say that men and women have the right to resist illegal laws, in what is undoubtedly among the most important sections of his argument, found on pages 27 and 28. There, he powerfully dismantles the counter-arguments that he anticipates from those who would argue that once something is "a law," it must be obeyed until it is repealed. If it were really true that an illegal or unconstitutional law must be obeyed until repealed, he reasons, then "there would therefore be no difference at all between a constitutional and an unconstitutional law, in respect to their binding force; and that would be equivalent to abolishing the constitution, and giving to the government unlimited power" (28). Those who would disagree with Lysander Spooner on this point are invited to participate in a mental experiment, in which they imagine that the president has signed a law saying that if you in any way hinder the search for an escaped slave, or in any way assist a person who has been designated a "slave" and who has run away and is hiding from the authorities, then you yourself are a criminal and can be subject to enormous fines and imprisonment. Note that this is not just a hypothetical scenario: the first and the thirteenth presidents of the United States each signed such a proposition into "law." Today, nobody reading this blog would likely argue that they would feel a moral duty to obey such a "law," or that they would have to actually support it until such time as they could eventually get it repealed through the same arduous process depicted in the Schoolhouse Rock video shown above. Nearly every man or woman would agree with Spooner that the institution of slavery and "laws" enforcing one person's ability to "own" another are not laws but rather outrageous crimes, and would reject the notion that writing such a "law" down on a piece of paper, stamping it with a pretty seal and adding some flowery signatures suddenly turns it into something that must be willingly and voluntarily obeyed until it can be debated and eventually repealed. Writing something on a piece of paper does not make it a law. But, if this is true, then what does make something a law? Lysander Spooner argued that the actions of men and women cannot actually make anything a law, but that there is already an immutable or unchangeable universal law which he called "Natural Law" or the "Science of Justice." He believed that human society should only enforce natural law, and not dream up additional or "artificial" laws, and that trying to add to or subtract from the natural law is as foolish as trying to add to or subtract from other natural laws, such as the law of gravity. He argued that men and women could voluntarily band together to help ensure compliance with this natural law among their group, but that they could not compel others to join that voluntary association. Even within such a voluntary association, he believed that people or groups could only rightly compel compliance with the natural law, which was generally extremely simple and basically entailed the command to "live honestly, hurt no one, and give everyone his or her due." In an 1882 publication entitled Natural Law; or The Science of Justice, Spooner set out to explain the concept of natural law. In it, he made a distinction between those things that everyone has a legal duty to either do or to refrain from doing, and which others can and must compel in others, and those things which everyone has a moral duty to do but which must be left up to each person's own judgment and which no one has the right or duty to compel. Below is a table based upon Spooner's 1882 text, generally following the order and wording of his argument: The left column (labeled "Legal Duty" and highlighted in yellow), in Spooner's view, constitutes those things which are part of the natural law, and can actually be the only things which anyone can rightfully use force to uphold. He says that everyone has a duty to refrain from injuring others, and that force may and must be used when someone sees someone else in the act of injuring someone else. Spooner further argues in that 1882 text that nearly everyone understands these natural law prohibitions and duties before they are even old enough to know that "three and three are six, or five and five ten" (9). The right column (labeled "Moral Duty" and highlighted in green), in Spooner's view, constitutes those things which we do have a moral duty to perform, but which no one else can compel us to do: we must judge the extent to which we are able to do those things, and how we wish to best accomplish them when we do decide to do them. Thus, in Spooner's view, any so-called law that goes beyond the legal duties in the left column (or, worse yet, directly contradicts and violates those legal duties, as did the Fugitive Slave Acts) is actually no law at all and it can and must be disobeyed as illegal and criminal, regardless of whether it was written down on paper using legal-sounding language and passed by men and women in fancy buildings and stamped with fancy stamps and inscribed with fancy signatures. At this point, the reader may be thinking that all of this is very nice, but what on earth does it have to do with the general subject matter covered in this blog? The answer is: everything. Because, as insightful thinkers such as Mark Passio have articulated, violations of natural law are so contrary to our innate understanding of right and wrong (remember that Spooner says we know it before we even know that 3 + 3 = 6) that artificial laws which violate natural law must always be dressed up with various symbols and word-formulas designed to convey legitimacy, and reinforced by systems of mind control by which men and women who should know that those violations are immoral can somehow be made to believe that those violations of natural law are instead right and good and deserving of support. Institutionalized violations of natural law are nearly always accompanied by powerful forms of illusion, or the creation of "false realities" that enable those violations to appear legitimate, and to get people to go along with them. Therefore, seeing through these false realities is of absolutely primary importance. This blog primarily examines false realities which can be seen operating all around us, including in the realm of conventional history as taught in all the institutions of academia and reinforced by the organs of the conventional media (see for example "Piercing the fog of deception that hides the contours of history" and also the two short videos entitled "The importance of challenging false narratives"). These false realities or false narratives which cause people to accept gross violations of natural law are operating today with just as much force as they were operating in Spooner's day -- perhaps even more so. False narratives assist in getting people to accept the premise that so-called "laws" permitting government surveillance of individual men and women at virtually any time and place are legitimate (see here and here). This is a violation of natural law in that it enables hidden enforcers and observers to treat individuals as criminals on the suspicion that they might do something to harm others, elevating some to the status of "prison guards" and demoting everyone else to the status of prisoners under constant suspicion and surveillance. False narratives convince people to accept the idea that men and women can and should be locked up and denied their freedom for possessing certain plants or mushrooms known to induce a state of ecstasy. This is a violation of natural law in that it uses force to prohibit behavior that in no way harms the person or property of another or infringes on another's rights. False narratives convince people to accept the idea that men and women representing the government and wearing military gear and driving military vehicles can point military weapons at people assembling in the streets to express themselves, or at people in their homes in a neighborhood where fugitives are supposedly hiding. These are clear violations of natural law in that such actions basically declare that force can be used against citizens whenever it is convenient for the government to say there is a need to do so, an idea which Spooner eloquently demolishes in pages 27 and 28 of his text against the Fugitive Slave Acts. In a passage labeled "Section IV" of his 1882 treatise on Natural Law, Spooner declares that the rights belonging to every human being by the unchangeable principle of justice "necessarily remain with him [or her] during life," and although these rights are "capable of being trampled upon" they are nevertheless "incapable of being blotted out, extinguished, annihilated, or separated from" each and every human being, and that there is no authority high enough to simply declare them null or void. False narratives have even apparently convinced some people that it is somehow excusable to cover up evidence of the potentially harmful effects of vaccines on certain children in order to support "herd immunity." All of the above examples, along with the many other violations of natural law currently taking place, are enabled and excused by a variety of false realities or false narratives, created and maintained in order to lend an air of legitimacy to these violations. So were many other horrendous violations of natural law which were enabled by false narratives and illusions throughout history, including the enslavement of Africans which Spooner argued against in the 1850s, to the destruction of Native American tribes in the western US after the end of the US Civil War and the seizure of their lands and their confinement to reservations or "agencies," to the seizure of the Hawaiian Islands and the Philippines in the years after that, and on and on right up to the present. All of the above examples were enabled by lies, illusions, and false narratives or false realities. For more on breaking through illusions and false realities, and creating new realities, see for example this previous post entitled "Jon Rappoport's talk on the trickster-god and creating reality." It is one of Lysander Spooner's singular contributions that he perceived and forcefully argued that a criminal "law" is no law at all, and that men and women have the right and the duty to treat it as such, and to inform others of their right to do the same. Putting something on paper doesn't make it a "law" -- even if it has been adorned with all the necessary stamps and signatures. As Spooner alludes in the writings linked above, the US Constitution as originally designed, and especially the Bill of Rights as originally conceived, were designed to safeguard natural-law rights in many ways, and to the extent that Schoolhouse Rock taught those principles to a new generation in the 1970s, it can be commended. Perhaps Spooner's arguments about an illegal law being no law at all could not really be expected to be squeezed into the "I'm Just a Bill" song. But Lysander Spooner's arguments deserve to be brought into the modern era, in much the same way that the creators of Schoolhouse Rock tried to speak to the younger generation of the 1970s using the language and imagery of the 1970s. Spooner's arguments on behalf of the individual's rights under natural law -- rights which could never be abridged by any authority -- and his arguments against the creation of arbitrary "laws" which everyone has to obey just because a legislature or a president gave them the title of a "law" deserve examination, consideration, and thoughtful debate today more than ever. And the false narratives supporting so-called laws which supposedly authorize some people to use violence against others, or to threaten violence against others, or to take away the freedom of others when those others have not done anything to harm anyone else's persons or property, must be shown to be the form of mind control that they are. No individuals or groups can give themselves the right to violate natural law and in doing so to infringe on anyone else's rights, simply by writing something down on a "sad little scrap of paper."

<urn:uuid:17474726-e53e-48c9-a980-028439f26526>

CC-MAIN-2018-13

http://www.starmythworld.com/mathisencorollary/2014/09/does-writing-something-on-piece-of.html

s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2018-13/segments/1521257647892.89/warc/CC-MAIN-20180322151300-20180322171300-00710.warc.gz

en

<urn:uuid:17474726-e53e-48c9-a980-028439f26526>_25

In an 1882 publication entitled Natural Law; or The Science of Justice, Spooner set out to explain the concept of natural law.

"Whew! You sure gotta climb a lot of steps to get to the Capitol Building here in Washington. Well I wonder who that sad little scrap of paper is?" And with those words began one of my childhood favorite Schoolhouse Rock videos, which used to be on television back in the early 1970s when I wasn't really old enough to have any idea what exactly they were all about, or why they would sometimes show up in between episodes of Superfriends, Speed Racer, or Sigmund and the Sea Monsters. In I'm just a bill," we witness the progress by which "that sad little scrap of paper" receives a fancy seal and a president's signature and becomes a law ("He signed ya, Bill: Now you're a Law!"). Although the video does an admirable job depicting some of the checks and balances contained in the US Constitution, through which the members of both houses of the legislature must agree to send the bill forward to the executive branch for final approval before any proposed bill is signed into law, it does tend to convey the impression that any "good idea" can be transformed into "a Law" through the magical process of being debated by important-looking men in impressive-looking buildings with lots of steps and Greek columns, on top of high hills (and filled with long rows of impassive US Marines in dress blue uniforms, and statues of distinguished statesmen from previous generations), signed by the president using a fountain pen, and affixed with a shiny-looking seal with a ribbon. Nineteenth-century abolitionist, legal scholar and philosopher Lysander Spooner (1808 - 1887) would vehemently disagree that something becomes "a law" just because it goes through the above process and receives a president's signature and a fancy stamp. In fact, he published a treatise in 1850 entitled A Defence for Fugitive Slaves against the Acts of Congress of February 12, 1793 and September 18, 1850, in which he argued that an illegal law is no law at all, and confers no obligation on anyone to obey it, nor any authority to anyone desiring to enforce it. He begins his treatise with the complete copy of each of the two acts in question, both of which were considered "law" in 1850, compelling men or women who knew of a "fugitive slave" to help catch that "fugitive slave" or face penalties including fines and imprisonment (the term "slave" is put in quotation marks here because Spooner argues that no person can ever own another person, and that there actually is no such thing as a legal slave or the legal condition of slavery, all so-called "laws" which make one person the property of another being illegal and criminal). Those two so-called laws (the Fugitive Slave Act of 1793 and the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850) were both signed by the presidents of their day, George Washington in the first instance and Millard Fillmore in the second (they also bear the signatures of the respective Speakers of the House and Presidents of the Senate). But these signatures do not make them true laws, according to Spooner's arguments. Spooner demonstrates that holding anyone else as property is a crime, and that putting something on paper, stamping it with fancy seals, embellishing it with fancy legal language, and endorsing it with the signatures of people bearing impressive titles does not make it into law: it's still just a "sad little scrap of paper" in his eyes. He even goes so far as to say that men and women have the right to resist illegal laws, in what is undoubtedly among the most important sections of his argument, found on pages 27 and 28. There, he powerfully dismantles the counter-arguments that he anticipates from those who would argue that once something is "a law," it must be obeyed until it is repealed. If it were really true that an illegal or unconstitutional law must be obeyed until repealed, he reasons, then "there would therefore be no difference at all between a constitutional and an unconstitutional law, in respect to their binding force; and that would be equivalent to abolishing the constitution, and giving to the government unlimited power" (28). Those who would disagree with Lysander Spooner on this point are invited to participate in a mental experiment, in which they imagine that the president has signed a law saying that if you in any way hinder the search for an escaped slave, or in any way assist a person who has been designated a "slave" and who has run away and is hiding from the authorities, then you yourself are a criminal and can be subject to enormous fines and imprisonment. Note that this is not just a hypothetical scenario: the first and the thirteenth presidents of the United States each signed such a proposition into "law." Today, nobody reading this blog would likely argue that they would feel a moral duty to obey such a "law," or that they would have to actually support it until such time as they could eventually get it repealed through the same arduous process depicted in the Schoolhouse Rock video shown above. Nearly every man or woman would agree with Spooner that the institution of slavery and "laws" enforcing one person's ability to "own" another are not laws but rather outrageous crimes, and would reject the notion that writing such a "law" down on a piece of paper, stamping it with a pretty seal and adding some flowery signatures suddenly turns it into something that must be willingly and voluntarily obeyed until it can be debated and eventually repealed. Writing something on a piece of paper does not make it a law. But, if this is true, then what does make something a law? Lysander Spooner argued that the actions of men and women cannot actually make anything a law, but that there is already an immutable or unchangeable universal law which he called "Natural Law" or the "Science of Justice." He believed that human society should only enforce natural law, and not dream up additional or "artificial" laws, and that trying to add to or subtract from the natural law is as foolish as trying to add to or subtract from other natural laws, such as the law of gravity. He argued that men and women could voluntarily band together to help ensure compliance with this natural law among their group, but that they could not compel others to join that voluntary association. Even within such a voluntary association, he believed that people or groups could only rightly compel compliance with the natural law, which was generally extremely simple and basically entailed the command to "live honestly, hurt no one, and give everyone his or her due." In an 1882 publication entitled Natural Law; or The Science of Justice, Spooner set out to explain the concept of natural law. In it, he made a distinction between those things that everyone has a legal duty to either do or to refrain from doing, and which others can and must compel in others, and those things which everyone has a moral duty to do but which must be left up to each person's own judgment and which no one has the right or duty to compel. Below is a table based upon Spooner's 1882 text, generally following the order and wording of his argument: The left column (labeled "Legal Duty" and highlighted in yellow), in Spooner's view, constitutes those things which are part of the natural law, and can actually be the only things which anyone can rightfully use force to uphold. He says that everyone has a duty to refrain from injuring others, and that force may and must be used when someone sees someone else in the act of injuring someone else. Spooner further argues in that 1882 text that nearly everyone understands these natural law prohibitions and duties before they are even old enough to know that "three and three are six, or five and five ten" (9). The right column (labeled "Moral Duty" and highlighted in green), in Spooner's view, constitutes those things which we do have a moral duty to perform, but which no one else can compel us to do: we must judge the extent to which we are able to do those things, and how we wish to best accomplish them when we do decide to do them. Thus, in Spooner's view, any so-called law that goes beyond the legal duties in the left column (or, worse yet, directly contradicts and violates those legal duties, as did the Fugitive Slave Acts) is actually no law at all and it can and must be disobeyed as illegal and criminal, regardless of whether it was written down on paper using legal-sounding language and passed by men and women in fancy buildings and stamped with fancy stamps and inscribed with fancy signatures. At this point, the reader may be thinking that all of this is very nice, but what on earth does it have to do with the general subject matter covered in this blog? The answer is: everything. Because, as insightful thinkers such as Mark Passio have articulated, violations of natural law are so contrary to our innate understanding of right and wrong (remember that Spooner says we know it before we even know that 3 + 3 = 6) that artificial laws which violate natural law must always be dressed up with various symbols and word-formulas designed to convey legitimacy, and reinforced by systems of mind control by which men and women who should know that those violations are immoral can somehow be made to believe that those violations of natural law are instead right and good and deserving of support. Institutionalized violations of natural law are nearly always accompanied by powerful forms of illusion, or the creation of "false realities" that enable those violations to appear legitimate, and to get people to go along with them. Therefore, seeing through these false realities is of absolutely primary importance. This blog primarily examines false realities which can be seen operating all around us, including in the realm of conventional history as taught in all the institutions of academia and reinforced by the organs of the conventional media (see for example "Piercing the fog of deception that hides the contours of history" and also the two short videos entitled "The importance of challenging false narratives"). These false realities or false narratives which cause people to accept gross violations of natural law are operating today with just as much force as they were operating in Spooner's day -- perhaps even more so. False narratives assist in getting people to accept the premise that so-called "laws" permitting government surveillance of individual men and women at virtually any time and place are legitimate (see here and here). This is a violation of natural law in that it enables hidden enforcers and observers to treat individuals as criminals on the suspicion that they might do something to harm others, elevating some to the status of "prison guards" and demoting everyone else to the status of prisoners under constant suspicion and surveillance. False narratives convince people to accept the idea that men and women can and should be locked up and denied their freedom for possessing certain plants or mushrooms known to induce a state of ecstasy. This is a violation of natural law in that it uses force to prohibit behavior that in no way harms the person or property of another or infringes on another's rights. False narratives convince people to accept the idea that men and women representing the government and wearing military gear and driving military vehicles can point military weapons at people assembling in the streets to express themselves, or at people in their homes in a neighborhood where fugitives are supposedly hiding. These are clear violations of natural law in that such actions basically declare that force can be used against citizens whenever it is convenient for the government to say there is a need to do so, an idea which Spooner eloquently demolishes in pages 27 and 28 of his text against the Fugitive Slave Acts. In a passage labeled "Section IV" of his 1882 treatise on Natural Law, Spooner declares that the rights belonging to every human being by the unchangeable principle of justice "necessarily remain with him [or her] during life," and although these rights are "capable of being trampled upon" they are nevertheless "incapable of being blotted out, extinguished, annihilated, or separated from" each and every human being, and that there is no authority high enough to simply declare them null or void. False narratives have even apparently convinced some people that it is somehow excusable to cover up evidence of the potentially harmful effects of vaccines on certain children in order to support "herd immunity." All of the above examples, along with the many other violations of natural law currently taking place, are enabled and excused by a variety of false realities or false narratives, created and maintained in order to lend an air of legitimacy to these violations. So were many other horrendous violations of natural law which were enabled by false narratives and illusions throughout history, including the enslavement of Africans which Spooner argued against in the 1850s, to the destruction of Native American tribes in the western US after the end of the US Civil War and the seizure of their lands and their confinement to reservations or "agencies," to the seizure of the Hawaiian Islands and the Philippines in the years after that, and on and on right up to the present. All of the above examples were enabled by lies, illusions, and false narratives or false realities. For more on breaking through illusions and false realities, and creating new realities, see for example this previous post entitled "Jon Rappoport's talk on the trickster-god and creating reality." It is one of Lysander Spooner's singular contributions that he perceived and forcefully argued that a criminal "law" is no law at all, and that men and women have the right and the duty to treat it as such, and to inform others of their right to do the same. Putting something on paper doesn't make it a "law" -- even if it has been adorned with all the necessary stamps and signatures. As Spooner alludes in the writings linked above, the US Constitution as originally designed, and especially the Bill of Rights as originally conceived, were designed to safeguard natural-law rights in many ways, and to the extent that Schoolhouse Rock taught those principles to a new generation in the 1970s, it can be commended. Perhaps Spooner's arguments about an illegal law being no law at all could not really be expected to be squeezed into the "I'm Just a Bill" song. But Lysander Spooner's arguments deserve to be brought into the modern era, in much the same way that the creators of Schoolhouse Rock tried to speak to the younger generation of the 1970s using the language and imagery of the 1970s. Spooner's arguments on behalf of the individual's rights under natural law -- rights which could never be abridged by any authority -- and his arguments against the creation of arbitrary "laws" which everyone has to obey just because a legislature or a president gave them the title of a "law" deserve examination, consideration, and thoughtful debate today more than ever. And the false narratives supporting so-called laws which supposedly authorize some people to use violence against others, or to threaten violence against others, or to take away the freedom of others when those others have not done anything to harm anyone else's persons or property, must be shown to be the form of mind control that they are. No individuals or groups can give themselves the right to violate natural law and in doing so to infringe on anyone else's rights, simply by writing something down on a "sad little scrap of paper."

<urn:uuid:17474726-e53e-48c9-a980-028439f26526>

CC-MAIN-2018-13

http://www.starmythworld.com/mathisencorollary/2014/09/does-writing-something-on-piece-of.html

s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2018-13/segments/1521257647892.89/warc/CC-MAIN-20180322151300-20180322171300-00710.warc.gz

en

<urn:uuid:17474726-e53e-48c9-a980-028439f26526>_26

In it, he made a distinction between those things that everyone has a legal duty to either do or to refrain from doing, and which others can and must compel in others, and those things which everyone has a moral duty to do but which must be left up to each person's own judgment and which no one has the right or duty to compel.

"Whew! You sure gotta climb a lot of steps to get to the Capitol Building here in Washington. Well I wonder who that sad little scrap of paper is?" And with those words began one of my childhood favorite Schoolhouse Rock videos, which used to be on television back in the early 1970s when I wasn't really old enough to have any idea what exactly they were all about, or why they would sometimes show up in between episodes of Superfriends, Speed Racer, or Sigmund and the Sea Monsters. In I'm just a bill," we witness the progress by which "that sad little scrap of paper" receives a fancy seal and a president's signature and becomes a law ("He signed ya, Bill: Now you're a Law!"). Although the video does an admirable job depicting some of the checks and balances contained in the US Constitution, through which the members of both houses of the legislature must agree to send the bill forward to the executive branch for final approval before any proposed bill is signed into law, it does tend to convey the impression that any "good idea" can be transformed into "a Law" through the magical process of being debated by important-looking men in impressive-looking buildings with lots of steps and Greek columns, on top of high hills (and filled with long rows of impassive US Marines in dress blue uniforms, and statues of distinguished statesmen from previous generations), signed by the president using a fountain pen, and affixed with a shiny-looking seal with a ribbon. Nineteenth-century abolitionist, legal scholar and philosopher Lysander Spooner (1808 - 1887) would vehemently disagree that something becomes "a law" just because it goes through the above process and receives a president's signature and a fancy stamp. In fact, he published a treatise in 1850 entitled A Defence for Fugitive Slaves against the Acts of Congress of February 12, 1793 and September 18, 1850, in which he argued that an illegal law is no law at all, and confers no obligation on anyone to obey it, nor any authority to anyone desiring to enforce it. He begins his treatise with the complete copy of each of the two acts in question, both of which were considered "law" in 1850, compelling men or women who knew of a "fugitive slave" to help catch that "fugitive slave" or face penalties including fines and imprisonment (the term "slave" is put in quotation marks here because Spooner argues that no person can ever own another person, and that there actually is no such thing as a legal slave or the legal condition of slavery, all so-called "laws" which make one person the property of another being illegal and criminal). Those two so-called laws (the Fugitive Slave Act of 1793 and the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850) were both signed by the presidents of their day, George Washington in the first instance and Millard Fillmore in the second (they also bear the signatures of the respective Speakers of the House and Presidents of the Senate). But these signatures do not make them true laws, according to Spooner's arguments. Spooner demonstrates that holding anyone else as property is a crime, and that putting something on paper, stamping it with fancy seals, embellishing it with fancy legal language, and endorsing it with the signatures of people bearing impressive titles does not make it into law: it's still just a "sad little scrap of paper" in his eyes. He even goes so far as to say that men and women have the right to resist illegal laws, in what is undoubtedly among the most important sections of his argument, found on pages 27 and 28. There, he powerfully dismantles the counter-arguments that he anticipates from those who would argue that once something is "a law," it must be obeyed until it is repealed. If it were really true that an illegal or unconstitutional law must be obeyed until repealed, he reasons, then "there would therefore be no difference at all between a constitutional and an unconstitutional law, in respect to their binding force; and that would be equivalent to abolishing the constitution, and giving to the government unlimited power" (28). Those who would disagree with Lysander Spooner on this point are invited to participate in a mental experiment, in which they imagine that the president has signed a law saying that if you in any way hinder the search for an escaped slave, or in any way assist a person who has been designated a "slave" and who has run away and is hiding from the authorities, then you yourself are a criminal and can be subject to enormous fines and imprisonment. Note that this is not just a hypothetical scenario: the first and the thirteenth presidents of the United States each signed such a proposition into "law." Today, nobody reading this blog would likely argue that they would feel a moral duty to obey such a "law," or that they would have to actually support it until such time as they could eventually get it repealed through the same arduous process depicted in the Schoolhouse Rock video shown above. Nearly every man or woman would agree with Spooner that the institution of slavery and "laws" enforcing one person's ability to "own" another are not laws but rather outrageous crimes, and would reject the notion that writing such a "law" down on a piece of paper, stamping it with a pretty seal and adding some flowery signatures suddenly turns it into something that must be willingly and voluntarily obeyed until it can be debated and eventually repealed. Writing something on a piece of paper does not make it a law. But, if this is true, then what does make something a law? Lysander Spooner argued that the actions of men and women cannot actually make anything a law, but that there is already an immutable or unchangeable universal law which he called "Natural Law" or the "Science of Justice." He believed that human society should only enforce natural law, and not dream up additional or "artificial" laws, and that trying to add to or subtract from the natural law is as foolish as trying to add to or subtract from other natural laws, such as the law of gravity. He argued that men and women could voluntarily band together to help ensure compliance with this natural law among their group, but that they could not compel others to join that voluntary association. Even within such a voluntary association, he believed that people or groups could only rightly compel compliance with the natural law, which was generally extremely simple and basically entailed the command to "live honestly, hurt no one, and give everyone his or her due." In an 1882 publication entitled Natural Law; or The Science of Justice, Spooner set out to explain the concept of natural law. In it, he made a distinction between those things that everyone has a legal duty to either do or to refrain from doing, and which others can and must compel in others, and those things which everyone has a moral duty to do but which must be left up to each person's own judgment and which no one has the right or duty to compel. Below is a table based upon Spooner's 1882 text, generally following the order and wording of his argument: The left column (labeled "Legal Duty" and highlighted in yellow), in Spooner's view, constitutes those things which are part of the natural law, and can actually be the only things which anyone can rightfully use force to uphold. He says that everyone has a duty to refrain from injuring others, and that force may and must be used when someone sees someone else in the act of injuring someone else. Spooner further argues in that 1882 text that nearly everyone understands these natural law prohibitions and duties before they are even old enough to know that "three and three are six, or five and five ten" (9). The right column (labeled "Moral Duty" and highlighted in green), in Spooner's view, constitutes those things which we do have a moral duty to perform, but which no one else can compel us to do: we must judge the extent to which we are able to do those things, and how we wish to best accomplish them when we do decide to do them. Thus, in Spooner's view, any so-called law that goes beyond the legal duties in the left column (or, worse yet, directly contradicts and violates those legal duties, as did the Fugitive Slave Acts) is actually no law at all and it can and must be disobeyed as illegal and criminal, regardless of whether it was written down on paper using legal-sounding language and passed by men and women in fancy buildings and stamped with fancy stamps and inscribed with fancy signatures. At this point, the reader may be thinking that all of this is very nice, but what on earth does it have to do with the general subject matter covered in this blog? The answer is: everything. Because, as insightful thinkers such as Mark Passio have articulated, violations of natural law are so contrary to our innate understanding of right and wrong (remember that Spooner says we know it before we even know that 3 + 3 = 6) that artificial laws which violate natural law must always be dressed up with various symbols and word-formulas designed to convey legitimacy, and reinforced by systems of mind control by which men and women who should know that those violations are immoral can somehow be made to believe that those violations of natural law are instead right and good and deserving of support. Institutionalized violations of natural law are nearly always accompanied by powerful forms of illusion, or the creation of "false realities" that enable those violations to appear legitimate, and to get people to go along with them. Therefore, seeing through these false realities is of absolutely primary importance. This blog primarily examines false realities which can be seen operating all around us, including in the realm of conventional history as taught in all the institutions of academia and reinforced by the organs of the conventional media (see for example "Piercing the fog of deception that hides the contours of history" and also the two short videos entitled "The importance of challenging false narratives"). These false realities or false narratives which cause people to accept gross violations of natural law are operating today with just as much force as they were operating in Spooner's day -- perhaps even more so. False narratives assist in getting people to accept the premise that so-called "laws" permitting government surveillance of individual men and women at virtually any time and place are legitimate (see here and here). This is a violation of natural law in that it enables hidden enforcers and observers to treat individuals as criminals on the suspicion that they might do something to harm others, elevating some to the status of "prison guards" and demoting everyone else to the status of prisoners under constant suspicion and surveillance. False narratives convince people to accept the idea that men and women can and should be locked up and denied their freedom for possessing certain plants or mushrooms known to induce a state of ecstasy. This is a violation of natural law in that it uses force to prohibit behavior that in no way harms the person or property of another or infringes on another's rights. False narratives convince people to accept the idea that men and women representing the government and wearing military gear and driving military vehicles can point military weapons at people assembling in the streets to express themselves, or at people in their homes in a neighborhood where fugitives are supposedly hiding. These are clear violations of natural law in that such actions basically declare that force can be used against citizens whenever it is convenient for the government to say there is a need to do so, an idea which Spooner eloquently demolishes in pages 27 and 28 of his text against the Fugitive Slave Acts. In a passage labeled "Section IV" of his 1882 treatise on Natural Law, Spooner declares that the rights belonging to every human being by the unchangeable principle of justice "necessarily remain with him [or her] during life," and although these rights are "capable of being trampled upon" they are nevertheless "incapable of being blotted out, extinguished, annihilated, or separated from" each and every human being, and that there is no authority high enough to simply declare them null or void. False narratives have even apparently convinced some people that it is somehow excusable to cover up evidence of the potentially harmful effects of vaccines on certain children in order to support "herd immunity." All of the above examples, along with the many other violations of natural law currently taking place, are enabled and excused by a variety of false realities or false narratives, created and maintained in order to lend an air of legitimacy to these violations. So were many other horrendous violations of natural law which were enabled by false narratives and illusions throughout history, including the enslavement of Africans which Spooner argued against in the 1850s, to the destruction of Native American tribes in the western US after the end of the US Civil War and the seizure of their lands and their confinement to reservations or "agencies," to the seizure of the Hawaiian Islands and the Philippines in the years after that, and on and on right up to the present. All of the above examples were enabled by lies, illusions, and false narratives or false realities. For more on breaking through illusions and false realities, and creating new realities, see for example this previous post entitled "Jon Rappoport's talk on the trickster-god and creating reality." It is one of Lysander Spooner's singular contributions that he perceived and forcefully argued that a criminal "law" is no law at all, and that men and women have the right and the duty to treat it as such, and to inform others of their right to do the same. Putting something on paper doesn't make it a "law" -- even if it has been adorned with all the necessary stamps and signatures. As Spooner alludes in the writings linked above, the US Constitution as originally designed, and especially the Bill of Rights as originally conceived, were designed to safeguard natural-law rights in many ways, and to the extent that Schoolhouse Rock taught those principles to a new generation in the 1970s, it can be commended. Perhaps Spooner's arguments about an illegal law being no law at all could not really be expected to be squeezed into the "I'm Just a Bill" song. But Lysander Spooner's arguments deserve to be brought into the modern era, in much the same way that the creators of Schoolhouse Rock tried to speak to the younger generation of the 1970s using the language and imagery of the 1970s. Spooner's arguments on behalf of the individual's rights under natural law -- rights which could never be abridged by any authority -- and his arguments against the creation of arbitrary "laws" which everyone has to obey just because a legislature or a president gave them the title of a "law" deserve examination, consideration, and thoughtful debate today more than ever. And the false narratives supporting so-called laws which supposedly authorize some people to use violence against others, or to threaten violence against others, or to take away the freedom of others when those others have not done anything to harm anyone else's persons or property, must be shown to be the form of mind control that they are. No individuals or groups can give themselves the right to violate natural law and in doing so to infringe on anyone else's rights, simply by writing something down on a "sad little scrap of paper."

<urn:uuid:17474726-e53e-48c9-a980-028439f26526>

CC-MAIN-2018-13

http://www.starmythworld.com/mathisencorollary/2014/09/does-writing-something-on-piece-of.html

s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2018-13/segments/1521257647892.89/warc/CC-MAIN-20180322151300-20180322171300-00710.warc.gz

en

<urn:uuid:17474726-e53e-48c9-a980-028439f26526>_27

Below is a table based upon Spooner's 1882 text, generally following the order and wording of his argument: The left column (labeled "Legal Duty" and highlighted in yellow), in Spooner's view, constitutes those things which are part of the natural law, and can actually be the only things which anyone can rightfully use force to uphold.

"Whew! You sure gotta climb a lot of steps to get to the Capitol Building here in Washington. Well I wonder who that sad little scrap of paper is?" And with those words began one of my childhood favorite Schoolhouse Rock videos, which used to be on television back in the early 1970s when I wasn't really old enough to have any idea what exactly they were all about, or why they would sometimes show up in between episodes of Superfriends, Speed Racer, or Sigmund and the Sea Monsters. In I'm just a bill," we witness the progress by which "that sad little scrap of paper" receives a fancy seal and a president's signature and becomes a law ("He signed ya, Bill: Now you're a Law!"). Although the video does an admirable job depicting some of the checks and balances contained in the US Constitution, through which the members of both houses of the legislature must agree to send the bill forward to the executive branch for final approval before any proposed bill is signed into law, it does tend to convey the impression that any "good idea" can be transformed into "a Law" through the magical process of being debated by important-looking men in impressive-looking buildings with lots of steps and Greek columns, on top of high hills (and filled with long rows of impassive US Marines in dress blue uniforms, and statues of distinguished statesmen from previous generations), signed by the president using a fountain pen, and affixed with a shiny-looking seal with a ribbon. Nineteenth-century abolitionist, legal scholar and philosopher Lysander Spooner (1808 - 1887) would vehemently disagree that something becomes "a law" just because it goes through the above process and receives a president's signature and a fancy stamp. In fact, he published a treatise in 1850 entitled A Defence for Fugitive Slaves against the Acts of Congress of February 12, 1793 and September 18, 1850, in which he argued that an illegal law is no law at all, and confers no obligation on anyone to obey it, nor any authority to anyone desiring to enforce it. He begins his treatise with the complete copy of each of the two acts in question, both of which were considered "law" in 1850, compelling men or women who knew of a "fugitive slave" to help catch that "fugitive slave" or face penalties including fines and imprisonment (the term "slave" is put in quotation marks here because Spooner argues that no person can ever own another person, and that there actually is no such thing as a legal slave or the legal condition of slavery, all so-called "laws" which make one person the property of another being illegal and criminal). Those two so-called laws (the Fugitive Slave Act of 1793 and the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850) were both signed by the presidents of their day, George Washington in the first instance and Millard Fillmore in the second (they also bear the signatures of the respective Speakers of the House and Presidents of the Senate). But these signatures do not make them true laws, according to Spooner's arguments. Spooner demonstrates that holding anyone else as property is a crime, and that putting something on paper, stamping it with fancy seals, embellishing it with fancy legal language, and endorsing it with the signatures of people bearing impressive titles does not make it into law: it's still just a "sad little scrap of paper" in his eyes. He even goes so far as to say that men and women have the right to resist illegal laws, in what is undoubtedly among the most important sections of his argument, found on pages 27 and 28. There, he powerfully dismantles the counter-arguments that he anticipates from those who would argue that once something is "a law," it must be obeyed until it is repealed. If it were really true that an illegal or unconstitutional law must be obeyed until repealed, he reasons, then "there would therefore be no difference at all between a constitutional and an unconstitutional law, in respect to their binding force; and that would be equivalent to abolishing the constitution, and giving to the government unlimited power" (28). Those who would disagree with Lysander Spooner on this point are invited to participate in a mental experiment, in which they imagine that the president has signed a law saying that if you in any way hinder the search for an escaped slave, or in any way assist a person who has been designated a "slave" and who has run away and is hiding from the authorities, then you yourself are a criminal and can be subject to enormous fines and imprisonment. Note that this is not just a hypothetical scenario: the first and the thirteenth presidents of the United States each signed such a proposition into "law." Today, nobody reading this blog would likely argue that they would feel a moral duty to obey such a "law," or that they would have to actually support it until such time as they could eventually get it repealed through the same arduous process depicted in the Schoolhouse Rock video shown above. Nearly every man or woman would agree with Spooner that the institution of slavery and "laws" enforcing one person's ability to "own" another are not laws but rather outrageous crimes, and would reject the notion that writing such a "law" down on a piece of paper, stamping it with a pretty seal and adding some flowery signatures suddenly turns it into something that must be willingly and voluntarily obeyed until it can be debated and eventually repealed. Writing something on a piece of paper does not make it a law. But, if this is true, then what does make something a law? Lysander Spooner argued that the actions of men and women cannot actually make anything a law, but that there is already an immutable or unchangeable universal law which he called "Natural Law" or the "Science of Justice." He believed that human society should only enforce natural law, and not dream up additional or "artificial" laws, and that trying to add to or subtract from the natural law is as foolish as trying to add to or subtract from other natural laws, such as the law of gravity. He argued that men and women could voluntarily band together to help ensure compliance with this natural law among their group, but that they could not compel others to join that voluntary association. Even within such a voluntary association, he believed that people or groups could only rightly compel compliance with the natural law, which was generally extremely simple and basically entailed the command to "live honestly, hurt no one, and give everyone his or her due." In an 1882 publication entitled Natural Law; or The Science of Justice, Spooner set out to explain the concept of natural law. In it, he made a distinction between those things that everyone has a legal duty to either do or to refrain from doing, and which others can and must compel in others, and those things which everyone has a moral duty to do but which must be left up to each person's own judgment and which no one has the right or duty to compel. Below is a table based upon Spooner's 1882 text, generally following the order and wording of his argument: The left column (labeled "Legal Duty" and highlighted in yellow), in Spooner's view, constitutes those things which are part of the natural law, and can actually be the only things which anyone can rightfully use force to uphold. He says that everyone has a duty to refrain from injuring others, and that force may and must be used when someone sees someone else in the act of injuring someone else. Spooner further argues in that 1882 text that nearly everyone understands these natural law prohibitions and duties before they are even old enough to know that "three and three are six, or five and five ten" (9). The right column (labeled "Moral Duty" and highlighted in green), in Spooner's view, constitutes those things which we do have a moral duty to perform, but which no one else can compel us to do: we must judge the extent to which we are able to do those things, and how we wish to best accomplish them when we do decide to do them. Thus, in Spooner's view, any so-called law that goes beyond the legal duties in the left column (or, worse yet, directly contradicts and violates those legal duties, as did the Fugitive Slave Acts) is actually no law at all and it can and must be disobeyed as illegal and criminal, regardless of whether it was written down on paper using legal-sounding language and passed by men and women in fancy buildings and stamped with fancy stamps and inscribed with fancy signatures. At this point, the reader may be thinking that all of this is very nice, but what on earth does it have to do with the general subject matter covered in this blog? The answer is: everything. Because, as insightful thinkers such as Mark Passio have articulated, violations of natural law are so contrary to our innate understanding of right and wrong (remember that Spooner says we know it before we even know that 3 + 3 = 6) that artificial laws which violate natural law must always be dressed up with various symbols and word-formulas designed to convey legitimacy, and reinforced by systems of mind control by which men and women who should know that those violations are immoral can somehow be made to believe that those violations of natural law are instead right and good and deserving of support. Institutionalized violations of natural law are nearly always accompanied by powerful forms of illusion, or the creation of "false realities" that enable those violations to appear legitimate, and to get people to go along with them. Therefore, seeing through these false realities is of absolutely primary importance. This blog primarily examines false realities which can be seen operating all around us, including in the realm of conventional history as taught in all the institutions of academia and reinforced by the organs of the conventional media (see for example "Piercing the fog of deception that hides the contours of history" and also the two short videos entitled "The importance of challenging false narratives"). These false realities or false narratives which cause people to accept gross violations of natural law are operating today with just as much force as they were operating in Spooner's day -- perhaps even more so. False narratives assist in getting people to accept the premise that so-called "laws" permitting government surveillance of individual men and women at virtually any time and place are legitimate (see here and here). This is a violation of natural law in that it enables hidden enforcers and observers to treat individuals as criminals on the suspicion that they might do something to harm others, elevating some to the status of "prison guards" and demoting everyone else to the status of prisoners under constant suspicion and surveillance. False narratives convince people to accept the idea that men and women can and should be locked up and denied their freedom for possessing certain plants or mushrooms known to induce a state of ecstasy. This is a violation of natural law in that it uses force to prohibit behavior that in no way harms the person or property of another or infringes on another's rights. False narratives convince people to accept the idea that men and women representing the government and wearing military gear and driving military vehicles can point military weapons at people assembling in the streets to express themselves, or at people in their homes in a neighborhood where fugitives are supposedly hiding. These are clear violations of natural law in that such actions basically declare that force can be used against citizens whenever it is convenient for the government to say there is a need to do so, an idea which Spooner eloquently demolishes in pages 27 and 28 of his text against the Fugitive Slave Acts. In a passage labeled "Section IV" of his 1882 treatise on Natural Law, Spooner declares that the rights belonging to every human being by the unchangeable principle of justice "necessarily remain with him [or her] during life," and although these rights are "capable of being trampled upon" they are nevertheless "incapable of being blotted out, extinguished, annihilated, or separated from" each and every human being, and that there is no authority high enough to simply declare them null or void. False narratives have even apparently convinced some people that it is somehow excusable to cover up evidence of the potentially harmful effects of vaccines on certain children in order to support "herd immunity." All of the above examples, along with the many other violations of natural law currently taking place, are enabled and excused by a variety of false realities or false narratives, created and maintained in order to lend an air of legitimacy to these violations. So were many other horrendous violations of natural law which were enabled by false narratives and illusions throughout history, including the enslavement of Africans which Spooner argued against in the 1850s, to the destruction of Native American tribes in the western US after the end of the US Civil War and the seizure of their lands and their confinement to reservations or "agencies," to the seizure of the Hawaiian Islands and the Philippines in the years after that, and on and on right up to the present. All of the above examples were enabled by lies, illusions, and false narratives or false realities. For more on breaking through illusions and false realities, and creating new realities, see for example this previous post entitled "Jon Rappoport's talk on the trickster-god and creating reality." It is one of Lysander Spooner's singular contributions that he perceived and forcefully argued that a criminal "law" is no law at all, and that men and women have the right and the duty to treat it as such, and to inform others of their right to do the same. Putting something on paper doesn't make it a "law" -- even if it has been adorned with all the necessary stamps and signatures. As Spooner alludes in the writings linked above, the US Constitution as originally designed, and especially the Bill of Rights as originally conceived, were designed to safeguard natural-law rights in many ways, and to the extent that Schoolhouse Rock taught those principles to a new generation in the 1970s, it can be commended. Perhaps Spooner's arguments about an illegal law being no law at all could not really be expected to be squeezed into the "I'm Just a Bill" song. But Lysander Spooner's arguments deserve to be brought into the modern era, in much the same way that the creators of Schoolhouse Rock tried to speak to the younger generation of the 1970s using the language and imagery of the 1970s. Spooner's arguments on behalf of the individual's rights under natural law -- rights which could never be abridged by any authority -- and his arguments against the creation of arbitrary "laws" which everyone has to obey just because a legislature or a president gave them the title of a "law" deserve examination, consideration, and thoughtful debate today more than ever. And the false narratives supporting so-called laws which supposedly authorize some people to use violence against others, or to threaten violence against others, or to take away the freedom of others when those others have not done anything to harm anyone else's persons or property, must be shown to be the form of mind control that they are. No individuals or groups can give themselves the right to violate natural law and in doing so to infringe on anyone else's rights, simply by writing something down on a "sad little scrap of paper."

<urn:uuid:17474726-e53e-48c9-a980-028439f26526>

CC-MAIN-2018-13

http://www.starmythworld.com/mathisencorollary/2014/09/does-writing-something-on-piece-of.html

s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2018-13/segments/1521257647892.89/warc/CC-MAIN-20180322151300-20180322171300-00710.warc.gz

en

<urn:uuid:17474726-e53e-48c9-a980-028439f26526>_28

He says that everyone has a duty to refrain from injuring others, and that force may and must be used when someone sees someone else in the act of injuring someone else.

"Whew! You sure gotta climb a lot of steps to get to the Capitol Building here in Washington. Well I wonder who that sad little scrap of paper is?" And with those words began one of my childhood favorite Schoolhouse Rock videos, which used to be on television back in the early 1970s when I wasn't really old enough to have any idea what exactly they were all about, or why they would sometimes show up in between episodes of Superfriends, Speed Racer, or Sigmund and the Sea Monsters. In I'm just a bill," we witness the progress by which "that sad little scrap of paper" receives a fancy seal and a president's signature and becomes a law ("He signed ya, Bill: Now you're a Law!"). Although the video does an admirable job depicting some of the checks and balances contained in the US Constitution, through which the members of both houses of the legislature must agree to send the bill forward to the executive branch for final approval before any proposed bill is signed into law, it does tend to convey the impression that any "good idea" can be transformed into "a Law" through the magical process of being debated by important-looking men in impressive-looking buildings with lots of steps and Greek columns, on top of high hills (and filled with long rows of impassive US Marines in dress blue uniforms, and statues of distinguished statesmen from previous generations), signed by the president using a fountain pen, and affixed with a shiny-looking seal with a ribbon. Nineteenth-century abolitionist, legal scholar and philosopher Lysander Spooner (1808 - 1887) would vehemently disagree that something becomes "a law" just because it goes through the above process and receives a president's signature and a fancy stamp. In fact, he published a treatise in 1850 entitled A Defence for Fugitive Slaves against the Acts of Congress of February 12, 1793 and September 18, 1850, in which he argued that an illegal law is no law at all, and confers no obligation on anyone to obey it, nor any authority to anyone desiring to enforce it. He begins his treatise with the complete copy of each of the two acts in question, both of which were considered "law" in 1850, compelling men or women who knew of a "fugitive slave" to help catch that "fugitive slave" or face penalties including fines and imprisonment (the term "slave" is put in quotation marks here because Spooner argues that no person can ever own another person, and that there actually is no such thing as a legal slave or the legal condition of slavery, all so-called "laws" which make one person the property of another being illegal and criminal). Those two so-called laws (the Fugitive Slave Act of 1793 and the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850) were both signed by the presidents of their day, George Washington in the first instance and Millard Fillmore in the second (they also bear the signatures of the respective Speakers of the House and Presidents of the Senate). But these signatures do not make them true laws, according to Spooner's arguments. Spooner demonstrates that holding anyone else as property is a crime, and that putting something on paper, stamping it with fancy seals, embellishing it with fancy legal language, and endorsing it with the signatures of people bearing impressive titles does not make it into law: it's still just a "sad little scrap of paper" in his eyes. He even goes so far as to say that men and women have the right to resist illegal laws, in what is undoubtedly among the most important sections of his argument, found on pages 27 and 28. There, he powerfully dismantles the counter-arguments that he anticipates from those who would argue that once something is "a law," it must be obeyed until it is repealed. If it were really true that an illegal or unconstitutional law must be obeyed until repealed, he reasons, then "there would therefore be no difference at all between a constitutional and an unconstitutional law, in respect to their binding force; and that would be equivalent to abolishing the constitution, and giving to the government unlimited power" (28). Those who would disagree with Lysander Spooner on this point are invited to participate in a mental experiment, in which they imagine that the president has signed a law saying that if you in any way hinder the search for an escaped slave, or in any way assist a person who has been designated a "slave" and who has run away and is hiding from the authorities, then you yourself are a criminal and can be subject to enormous fines and imprisonment. Note that this is not just a hypothetical scenario: the first and the thirteenth presidents of the United States each signed such a proposition into "law." Today, nobody reading this blog would likely argue that they would feel a moral duty to obey such a "law," or that they would have to actually support it until such time as they could eventually get it repealed through the same arduous process depicted in the Schoolhouse Rock video shown above. Nearly every man or woman would agree with Spooner that the institution of slavery and "laws" enforcing one person's ability to "own" another are not laws but rather outrageous crimes, and would reject the notion that writing such a "law" down on a piece of paper, stamping it with a pretty seal and adding some flowery signatures suddenly turns it into something that must be willingly and voluntarily obeyed until it can be debated and eventually repealed. Writing something on a piece of paper does not make it a law. But, if this is true, then what does make something a law? Lysander Spooner argued that the actions of men and women cannot actually make anything a law, but that there is already an immutable or unchangeable universal law which he called "Natural Law" or the "Science of Justice." He believed that human society should only enforce natural law, and not dream up additional or "artificial" laws, and that trying to add to or subtract from the natural law is as foolish as trying to add to or subtract from other natural laws, such as the law of gravity. He argued that men and women could voluntarily band together to help ensure compliance with this natural law among their group, but that they could not compel others to join that voluntary association. Even within such a voluntary association, he believed that people or groups could only rightly compel compliance with the natural law, which was generally extremely simple and basically entailed the command to "live honestly, hurt no one, and give everyone his or her due." In an 1882 publication entitled Natural Law; or The Science of Justice, Spooner set out to explain the concept of natural law. In it, he made a distinction between those things that everyone has a legal duty to either do or to refrain from doing, and which others can and must compel in others, and those things which everyone has a moral duty to do but which must be left up to each person's own judgment and which no one has the right or duty to compel. Below is a table based upon Spooner's 1882 text, generally following the order and wording of his argument: The left column (labeled "Legal Duty" and highlighted in yellow), in Spooner's view, constitutes those things which are part of the natural law, and can actually be the only things which anyone can rightfully use force to uphold. He says that everyone has a duty to refrain from injuring others, and that force may and must be used when someone sees someone else in the act of injuring someone else. Spooner further argues in that 1882 text that nearly everyone understands these natural law prohibitions and duties before they are even old enough to know that "three and three are six, or five and five ten" (9). The right column (labeled "Moral Duty" and highlighted in green), in Spooner's view, constitutes those things which we do have a moral duty to perform, but which no one else can compel us to do: we must judge the extent to which we are able to do those things, and how we wish to best accomplish them when we do decide to do them. Thus, in Spooner's view, any so-called law that goes beyond the legal duties in the left column (or, worse yet, directly contradicts and violates those legal duties, as did the Fugitive Slave Acts) is actually no law at all and it can and must be disobeyed as illegal and criminal, regardless of whether it was written down on paper using legal-sounding language and passed by men and women in fancy buildings and stamped with fancy stamps and inscribed with fancy signatures. At this point, the reader may be thinking that all of this is very nice, but what on earth does it have to do with the general subject matter covered in this blog? The answer is: everything. Because, as insightful thinkers such as Mark Passio have articulated, violations of natural law are so contrary to our innate understanding of right and wrong (remember that Spooner says we know it before we even know that 3 + 3 = 6) that artificial laws which violate natural law must always be dressed up with various symbols and word-formulas designed to convey legitimacy, and reinforced by systems of mind control by which men and women who should know that those violations are immoral can somehow be made to believe that those violations of natural law are instead right and good and deserving of support. Institutionalized violations of natural law are nearly always accompanied by powerful forms of illusion, or the creation of "false realities" that enable those violations to appear legitimate, and to get people to go along with them. Therefore, seeing through these false realities is of absolutely primary importance. This blog primarily examines false realities which can be seen operating all around us, including in the realm of conventional history as taught in all the institutions of academia and reinforced by the organs of the conventional media (see for example "Piercing the fog of deception that hides the contours of history" and also the two short videos entitled "The importance of challenging false narratives"). These false realities or false narratives which cause people to accept gross violations of natural law are operating today with just as much force as they were operating in Spooner's day -- perhaps even more so. False narratives assist in getting people to accept the premise that so-called "laws" permitting government surveillance of individual men and women at virtually any time and place are legitimate (see here and here). This is a violation of natural law in that it enables hidden enforcers and observers to treat individuals as criminals on the suspicion that they might do something to harm others, elevating some to the status of "prison guards" and demoting everyone else to the status of prisoners under constant suspicion and surveillance. False narratives convince people to accept the idea that men and women can and should be locked up and denied their freedom for possessing certain plants or mushrooms known to induce a state of ecstasy. This is a violation of natural law in that it uses force to prohibit behavior that in no way harms the person or property of another or infringes on another's rights. False narratives convince people to accept the idea that men and women representing the government and wearing military gear and driving military vehicles can point military weapons at people assembling in the streets to express themselves, or at people in their homes in a neighborhood where fugitives are supposedly hiding. These are clear violations of natural law in that such actions basically declare that force can be used against citizens whenever it is convenient for the government to say there is a need to do so, an idea which Spooner eloquently demolishes in pages 27 and 28 of his text against the Fugitive Slave Acts. In a passage labeled "Section IV" of his 1882 treatise on Natural Law, Spooner declares that the rights belonging to every human being by the unchangeable principle of justice "necessarily remain with him [or her] during life," and although these rights are "capable of being trampled upon" they are nevertheless "incapable of being blotted out, extinguished, annihilated, or separated from" each and every human being, and that there is no authority high enough to simply declare them null or void. False narratives have even apparently convinced some people that it is somehow excusable to cover up evidence of the potentially harmful effects of vaccines on certain children in order to support "herd immunity." All of the above examples, along with the many other violations of natural law currently taking place, are enabled and excused by a variety of false realities or false narratives, created and maintained in order to lend an air of legitimacy to these violations. So were many other horrendous violations of natural law which were enabled by false narratives and illusions throughout history, including the enslavement of Africans which Spooner argued against in the 1850s, to the destruction of Native American tribes in the western US after the end of the US Civil War and the seizure of their lands and their confinement to reservations or "agencies," to the seizure of the Hawaiian Islands and the Philippines in the years after that, and on and on right up to the present. All of the above examples were enabled by lies, illusions, and false narratives or false realities. For more on breaking through illusions and false realities, and creating new realities, see for example this previous post entitled "Jon Rappoport's talk on the trickster-god and creating reality." It is one of Lysander Spooner's singular contributions that he perceived and forcefully argued that a criminal "law" is no law at all, and that men and women have the right and the duty to treat it as such, and to inform others of their right to do the same. Putting something on paper doesn't make it a "law" -- even if it has been adorned with all the necessary stamps and signatures. As Spooner alludes in the writings linked above, the US Constitution as originally designed, and especially the Bill of Rights as originally conceived, were designed to safeguard natural-law rights in many ways, and to the extent that Schoolhouse Rock taught those principles to a new generation in the 1970s, it can be commended. Perhaps Spooner's arguments about an illegal law being no law at all could not really be expected to be squeezed into the "I'm Just a Bill" song. But Lysander Spooner's arguments deserve to be brought into the modern era, in much the same way that the creators of Schoolhouse Rock tried to speak to the younger generation of the 1970s using the language and imagery of the 1970s. Spooner's arguments on behalf of the individual's rights under natural law -- rights which could never be abridged by any authority -- and his arguments against the creation of arbitrary "laws" which everyone has to obey just because a legislature or a president gave them the title of a "law" deserve examination, consideration, and thoughtful debate today more than ever. And the false narratives supporting so-called laws which supposedly authorize some people to use violence against others, or to threaten violence against others, or to take away the freedom of others when those others have not done anything to harm anyone else's persons or property, must be shown to be the form of mind control that they are. No individuals or groups can give themselves the right to violate natural law and in doing so to infringe on anyone else's rights, simply by writing something down on a "sad little scrap of paper."

<urn:uuid:17474726-e53e-48c9-a980-028439f26526>

CC-MAIN-2018-13

http://www.starmythworld.com/mathisencorollary/2014/09/does-writing-something-on-piece-of.html

s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2018-13/segments/1521257647892.89/warc/CC-MAIN-20180322151300-20180322171300-00710.warc.gz

en

<urn:uuid:17474726-e53e-48c9-a980-028439f26526>_29

Spooner further argues in that 1882 text that nearly everyone understands these natural law prohibitions and duties before they are even old enough to know that "three and three are six, or five and five ten" (9).

"Whew! You sure gotta climb a lot of steps to get to the Capitol Building here in Washington. Well I wonder who that sad little scrap of paper is?" And with those words began one of my childhood favorite Schoolhouse Rock videos, which used to be on television back in the early 1970s when I wasn't really old enough to have any idea what exactly they were all about, or why they would sometimes show up in between episodes of Superfriends, Speed Racer, or Sigmund and the Sea Monsters. In I'm just a bill," we witness the progress by which "that sad little scrap of paper" receives a fancy seal and a president's signature and becomes a law ("He signed ya, Bill: Now you're a Law!"). Although the video does an admirable job depicting some of the checks and balances contained in the US Constitution, through which the members of both houses of the legislature must agree to send the bill forward to the executive branch for final approval before any proposed bill is signed into law, it does tend to convey the impression that any "good idea" can be transformed into "a Law" through the magical process of being debated by important-looking men in impressive-looking buildings with lots of steps and Greek columns, on top of high hills (and filled with long rows of impassive US Marines in dress blue uniforms, and statues of distinguished statesmen from previous generations), signed by the president using a fountain pen, and affixed with a shiny-looking seal with a ribbon. Nineteenth-century abolitionist, legal scholar and philosopher Lysander Spooner (1808 - 1887) would vehemently disagree that something becomes "a law" just because it goes through the above process and receives a president's signature and a fancy stamp. In fact, he published a treatise in 1850 entitled A Defence for Fugitive Slaves against the Acts of Congress of February 12, 1793 and September 18, 1850, in which he argued that an illegal law is no law at all, and confers no obligation on anyone to obey it, nor any authority to anyone desiring to enforce it. He begins his treatise with the complete copy of each of the two acts in question, both of which were considered "law" in 1850, compelling men or women who knew of a "fugitive slave" to help catch that "fugitive slave" or face penalties including fines and imprisonment (the term "slave" is put in quotation marks here because Spooner argues that no person can ever own another person, and that there actually is no such thing as a legal slave or the legal condition of slavery, all so-called "laws" which make one person the property of another being illegal and criminal). Those two so-called laws (the Fugitive Slave Act of 1793 and the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850) were both signed by the presidents of their day, George Washington in the first instance and Millard Fillmore in the second (they also bear the signatures of the respective Speakers of the House and Presidents of the Senate). But these signatures do not make them true laws, according to Spooner's arguments. Spooner demonstrates that holding anyone else as property is a crime, and that putting something on paper, stamping it with fancy seals, embellishing it with fancy legal language, and endorsing it with the signatures of people bearing impressive titles does not make it into law: it's still just a "sad little scrap of paper" in his eyes. He even goes so far as to say that men and women have the right to resist illegal laws, in what is undoubtedly among the most important sections of his argument, found on pages 27 and 28. There, he powerfully dismantles the counter-arguments that he anticipates from those who would argue that once something is "a law," it must be obeyed until it is repealed. If it were really true that an illegal or unconstitutional law must be obeyed until repealed, he reasons, then "there would therefore be no difference at all between a constitutional and an unconstitutional law, in respect to their binding force; and that would be equivalent to abolishing the constitution, and giving to the government unlimited power" (28). Those who would disagree with Lysander Spooner on this point are invited to participate in a mental experiment, in which they imagine that the president has signed a law saying that if you in any way hinder the search for an escaped slave, or in any way assist a person who has been designated a "slave" and who has run away and is hiding from the authorities, then you yourself are a criminal and can be subject to enormous fines and imprisonment. Note that this is not just a hypothetical scenario: the first and the thirteenth presidents of the United States each signed such a proposition into "law." Today, nobody reading this blog would likely argue that they would feel a moral duty to obey such a "law," or that they would have to actually support it until such time as they could eventually get it repealed through the same arduous process depicted in the Schoolhouse Rock video shown above. Nearly every man or woman would agree with Spooner that the institution of slavery and "laws" enforcing one person's ability to "own" another are not laws but rather outrageous crimes, and would reject the notion that writing such a "law" down on a piece of paper, stamping it with a pretty seal and adding some flowery signatures suddenly turns it into something that must be willingly and voluntarily obeyed until it can be debated and eventually repealed. Writing something on a piece of paper does not make it a law. But, if this is true, then what does make something a law? Lysander Spooner argued that the actions of men and women cannot actually make anything a law, but that there is already an immutable or unchangeable universal law which he called "Natural Law" or the "Science of Justice." He believed that human society should only enforce natural law, and not dream up additional or "artificial" laws, and that trying to add to or subtract from the natural law is as foolish as trying to add to or subtract from other natural laws, such as the law of gravity. He argued that men and women could voluntarily band together to help ensure compliance with this natural law among their group, but that they could not compel others to join that voluntary association. Even within such a voluntary association, he believed that people or groups could only rightly compel compliance with the natural law, which was generally extremely simple and basically entailed the command to "live honestly, hurt no one, and give everyone his or her due." In an 1882 publication entitled Natural Law; or The Science of Justice, Spooner set out to explain the concept of natural law. In it, he made a distinction between those things that everyone has a legal duty to either do or to refrain from doing, and which others can and must compel in others, and those things which everyone has a moral duty to do but which must be left up to each person's own judgment and which no one has the right or duty to compel. Below is a table based upon Spooner's 1882 text, generally following the order and wording of his argument: The left column (labeled "Legal Duty" and highlighted in yellow), in Spooner's view, constitutes those things which are part of the natural law, and can actually be the only things which anyone can rightfully use force to uphold. He says that everyone has a duty to refrain from injuring others, and that force may and must be used when someone sees someone else in the act of injuring someone else. Spooner further argues in that 1882 text that nearly everyone understands these natural law prohibitions and duties before they are even old enough to know that "three and three are six, or five and five ten" (9). The right column (labeled "Moral Duty" and highlighted in green), in Spooner's view, constitutes those things which we do have a moral duty to perform, but which no one else can compel us to do: we must judge the extent to which we are able to do those things, and how we wish to best accomplish them when we do decide to do them. Thus, in Spooner's view, any so-called law that goes beyond the legal duties in the left column (or, worse yet, directly contradicts and violates those legal duties, as did the Fugitive Slave Acts) is actually no law at all and it can and must be disobeyed as illegal and criminal, regardless of whether it was written down on paper using legal-sounding language and passed by men and women in fancy buildings and stamped with fancy stamps and inscribed with fancy signatures. At this point, the reader may be thinking that all of this is very nice, but what on earth does it have to do with the general subject matter covered in this blog? The answer is: everything. Because, as insightful thinkers such as Mark Passio have articulated, violations of natural law are so contrary to our innate understanding of right and wrong (remember that Spooner says we know it before we even know that 3 + 3 = 6) that artificial laws which violate natural law must always be dressed up with various symbols and word-formulas designed to convey legitimacy, and reinforced by systems of mind control by which men and women who should know that those violations are immoral can somehow be made to believe that those violations of natural law are instead right and good and deserving of support. Institutionalized violations of natural law are nearly always accompanied by powerful forms of illusion, or the creation of "false realities" that enable those violations to appear legitimate, and to get people to go along with them. Therefore, seeing through these false realities is of absolutely primary importance. This blog primarily examines false realities which can be seen operating all around us, including in the realm of conventional history as taught in all the institutions of academia and reinforced by the organs of the conventional media (see for example "Piercing the fog of deception that hides the contours of history" and also the two short videos entitled "The importance of challenging false narratives"). These false realities or false narratives which cause people to accept gross violations of natural law are operating today with just as much force as they were operating in Spooner's day -- perhaps even more so. False narratives assist in getting people to accept the premise that so-called "laws" permitting government surveillance of individual men and women at virtually any time and place are legitimate (see here and here). This is a violation of natural law in that it enables hidden enforcers and observers to treat individuals as criminals on the suspicion that they might do something to harm others, elevating some to the status of "prison guards" and demoting everyone else to the status of prisoners under constant suspicion and surveillance. False narratives convince people to accept the idea that men and women can and should be locked up and denied their freedom for possessing certain plants or mushrooms known to induce a state of ecstasy. This is a violation of natural law in that it uses force to prohibit behavior that in no way harms the person or property of another or infringes on another's rights. False narratives convince people to accept the idea that men and women representing the government and wearing military gear and driving military vehicles can point military weapons at people assembling in the streets to express themselves, or at people in their homes in a neighborhood where fugitives are supposedly hiding. These are clear violations of natural law in that such actions basically declare that force can be used against citizens whenever it is convenient for the government to say there is a need to do so, an idea which Spooner eloquently demolishes in pages 27 and 28 of his text against the Fugitive Slave Acts. In a passage labeled "Section IV" of his 1882 treatise on Natural Law, Spooner declares that the rights belonging to every human being by the unchangeable principle of justice "necessarily remain with him [or her] during life," and although these rights are "capable of being trampled upon" they are nevertheless "incapable of being blotted out, extinguished, annihilated, or separated from" each and every human being, and that there is no authority high enough to simply declare them null or void. False narratives have even apparently convinced some people that it is somehow excusable to cover up evidence of the potentially harmful effects of vaccines on certain children in order to support "herd immunity." All of the above examples, along with the many other violations of natural law currently taking place, are enabled and excused by a variety of false realities or false narratives, created and maintained in order to lend an air of legitimacy to these violations. So were many other horrendous violations of natural law which were enabled by false narratives and illusions throughout history, including the enslavement of Africans which Spooner argued against in the 1850s, to the destruction of Native American tribes in the western US after the end of the US Civil War and the seizure of their lands and their confinement to reservations or "agencies," to the seizure of the Hawaiian Islands and the Philippines in the years after that, and on and on right up to the present. All of the above examples were enabled by lies, illusions, and false narratives or false realities. For more on breaking through illusions and false realities, and creating new realities, see for example this previous post entitled "Jon Rappoport's talk on the trickster-god and creating reality." It is one of Lysander Spooner's singular contributions that he perceived and forcefully argued that a criminal "law" is no law at all, and that men and women have the right and the duty to treat it as such, and to inform others of their right to do the same. Putting something on paper doesn't make it a "law" -- even if it has been adorned with all the necessary stamps and signatures. As Spooner alludes in the writings linked above, the US Constitution as originally designed, and especially the Bill of Rights as originally conceived, were designed to safeguard natural-law rights in many ways, and to the extent that Schoolhouse Rock taught those principles to a new generation in the 1970s, it can be commended. Perhaps Spooner's arguments about an illegal law being no law at all could not really be expected to be squeezed into the "I'm Just a Bill" song. But Lysander Spooner's arguments deserve to be brought into the modern era, in much the same way that the creators of Schoolhouse Rock tried to speak to the younger generation of the 1970s using the language and imagery of the 1970s. Spooner's arguments on behalf of the individual's rights under natural law -- rights which could never be abridged by any authority -- and his arguments against the creation of arbitrary "laws" which everyone has to obey just because a legislature or a president gave them the title of a "law" deserve examination, consideration, and thoughtful debate today more than ever. And the false narratives supporting so-called laws which supposedly authorize some people to use violence against others, or to threaten violence against others, or to take away the freedom of others when those others have not done anything to harm anyone else's persons or property, must be shown to be the form of mind control that they are. No individuals or groups can give themselves the right to violate natural law and in doing so to infringe on anyone else's rights, simply by writing something down on a "sad little scrap of paper."

<urn:uuid:17474726-e53e-48c9-a980-028439f26526>

CC-MAIN-2018-13

http://www.starmythworld.com/mathisencorollary/2014/09/does-writing-something-on-piece-of.html

s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2018-13/segments/1521257647892.89/warc/CC-MAIN-20180322151300-20180322171300-00710.warc.gz

en

<urn:uuid:17474726-e53e-48c9-a980-028439f26526>_30

The right column (labeled "Moral Duty" and highlighted in green), in Spooner's view, constitutes those things which we do have a moral duty to perform, but which no one else can compel us to do: we must judge the extent to which we are able to do those things, and how we wish to best accomplish them when we do decide to do them.

"Whew! You sure gotta climb a lot of steps to get to the Capitol Building here in Washington. Well I wonder who that sad little scrap of paper is?" And with those words began one of my childhood favorite Schoolhouse Rock videos, which used to be on television back in the early 1970s when I wasn't really old enough to have any idea what exactly they were all about, or why they would sometimes show up in between episodes of Superfriends, Speed Racer, or Sigmund and the Sea Monsters. In I'm just a bill," we witness the progress by which "that sad little scrap of paper" receives a fancy seal and a president's signature and becomes a law ("He signed ya, Bill: Now you're a Law!"). Although the video does an admirable job depicting some of the checks and balances contained in the US Constitution, through which the members of both houses of the legislature must agree to send the bill forward to the executive branch for final approval before any proposed bill is signed into law, it does tend to convey the impression that any "good idea" can be transformed into "a Law" through the magical process of being debated by important-looking men in impressive-looking buildings with lots of steps and Greek columns, on top of high hills (and filled with long rows of impassive US Marines in dress blue uniforms, and statues of distinguished statesmen from previous generations), signed by the president using a fountain pen, and affixed with a shiny-looking seal with a ribbon. Nineteenth-century abolitionist, legal scholar and philosopher Lysander Spooner (1808 - 1887) would vehemently disagree that something becomes "a law" just because it goes through the above process and receives a president's signature and a fancy stamp. In fact, he published a treatise in 1850 entitled A Defence for Fugitive Slaves against the Acts of Congress of February 12, 1793 and September 18, 1850, in which he argued that an illegal law is no law at all, and confers no obligation on anyone to obey it, nor any authority to anyone desiring to enforce it. He begins his treatise with the complete copy of each of the two acts in question, both of which were considered "law" in 1850, compelling men or women who knew of a "fugitive slave" to help catch that "fugitive slave" or face penalties including fines and imprisonment (the term "slave" is put in quotation marks here because Spooner argues that no person can ever own another person, and that there actually is no such thing as a legal slave or the legal condition of slavery, all so-called "laws" which make one person the property of another being illegal and criminal). Those two so-called laws (the Fugitive Slave Act of 1793 and the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850) were both signed by the presidents of their day, George Washington in the first instance and Millard Fillmore in the second (they also bear the signatures of the respective Speakers of the House and Presidents of the Senate). But these signatures do not make them true laws, according to Spooner's arguments. Spooner demonstrates that holding anyone else as property is a crime, and that putting something on paper, stamping it with fancy seals, embellishing it with fancy legal language, and endorsing it with the signatures of people bearing impressive titles does not make it into law: it's still just a "sad little scrap of paper" in his eyes. He even goes so far as to say that men and women have the right to resist illegal laws, in what is undoubtedly among the most important sections of his argument, found on pages 27 and 28. There, he powerfully dismantles the counter-arguments that he anticipates from those who would argue that once something is "a law," it must be obeyed until it is repealed. If it were really true that an illegal or unconstitutional law must be obeyed until repealed, he reasons, then "there would therefore be no difference at all between a constitutional and an unconstitutional law, in respect to their binding force; and that would be equivalent to abolishing the constitution, and giving to the government unlimited power" (28). Those who would disagree with Lysander Spooner on this point are invited to participate in a mental experiment, in which they imagine that the president has signed a law saying that if you in any way hinder the search for an escaped slave, or in any way assist a person who has been designated a "slave" and who has run away and is hiding from the authorities, then you yourself are a criminal and can be subject to enormous fines and imprisonment. Note that this is not just a hypothetical scenario: the first and the thirteenth presidents of the United States each signed such a proposition into "law." Today, nobody reading this blog would likely argue that they would feel a moral duty to obey such a "law," or that they would have to actually support it until such time as they could eventually get it repealed through the same arduous process depicted in the Schoolhouse Rock video shown above. Nearly every man or woman would agree with Spooner that the institution of slavery and "laws" enforcing one person's ability to "own" another are not laws but rather outrageous crimes, and would reject the notion that writing such a "law" down on a piece of paper, stamping it with a pretty seal and adding some flowery signatures suddenly turns it into something that must be willingly and voluntarily obeyed until it can be debated and eventually repealed. Writing something on a piece of paper does not make it a law. But, if this is true, then what does make something a law? Lysander Spooner argued that the actions of men and women cannot actually make anything a law, but that there is already an immutable or unchangeable universal law which he called "Natural Law" or the "Science of Justice." He believed that human society should only enforce natural law, and not dream up additional or "artificial" laws, and that trying to add to or subtract from the natural law is as foolish as trying to add to or subtract from other natural laws, such as the law of gravity. He argued that men and women could voluntarily band together to help ensure compliance with this natural law among their group, but that they could not compel others to join that voluntary association. Even within such a voluntary association, he believed that people or groups could only rightly compel compliance with the natural law, which was generally extremely simple and basically entailed the command to "live honestly, hurt no one, and give everyone his or her due." In an 1882 publication entitled Natural Law; or The Science of Justice, Spooner set out to explain the concept of natural law. In it, he made a distinction between those things that everyone has a legal duty to either do or to refrain from doing, and which others can and must compel in others, and those things which everyone has a moral duty to do but which must be left up to each person's own judgment and which no one has the right or duty to compel. Below is a table based upon Spooner's 1882 text, generally following the order and wording of his argument: The left column (labeled "Legal Duty" and highlighted in yellow), in Spooner's view, constitutes those things which are part of the natural law, and can actually be the only things which anyone can rightfully use force to uphold. He says that everyone has a duty to refrain from injuring others, and that force may and must be used when someone sees someone else in the act of injuring someone else. Spooner further argues in that 1882 text that nearly everyone understands these natural law prohibitions and duties before they are even old enough to know that "three and three are six, or five and five ten" (9). The right column (labeled "Moral Duty" and highlighted in green), in Spooner's view, constitutes those things which we do have a moral duty to perform, but which no one else can compel us to do: we must judge the extent to which we are able to do those things, and how we wish to best accomplish them when we do decide to do them. Thus, in Spooner's view, any so-called law that goes beyond the legal duties in the left column (or, worse yet, directly contradicts and violates those legal duties, as did the Fugitive Slave Acts) is actually no law at all and it can and must be disobeyed as illegal and criminal, regardless of whether it was written down on paper using legal-sounding language and passed by men and women in fancy buildings and stamped with fancy stamps and inscribed with fancy signatures. At this point, the reader may be thinking that all of this is very nice, but what on earth does it have to do with the general subject matter covered in this blog? The answer is: everything. Because, as insightful thinkers such as Mark Passio have articulated, violations of natural law are so contrary to our innate understanding of right and wrong (remember that Spooner says we know it before we even know that 3 + 3 = 6) that artificial laws which violate natural law must always be dressed up with various symbols and word-formulas designed to convey legitimacy, and reinforced by systems of mind control by which men and women who should know that those violations are immoral can somehow be made to believe that those violations of natural law are instead right and good and deserving of support. Institutionalized violations of natural law are nearly always accompanied by powerful forms of illusion, or the creation of "false realities" that enable those violations to appear legitimate, and to get people to go along with them. Therefore, seeing through these false realities is of absolutely primary importance. This blog primarily examines false realities which can be seen operating all around us, including in the realm of conventional history as taught in all the institutions of academia and reinforced by the organs of the conventional media (see for example "Piercing the fog of deception that hides the contours of history" and also the two short videos entitled "The importance of challenging false narratives"). These false realities or false narratives which cause people to accept gross violations of natural law are operating today with just as much force as they were operating in Spooner's day -- perhaps even more so. False narratives assist in getting people to accept the premise that so-called "laws" permitting government surveillance of individual men and women at virtually any time and place are legitimate (see here and here). This is a violation of natural law in that it enables hidden enforcers and observers to treat individuals as criminals on the suspicion that they might do something to harm others, elevating some to the status of "prison guards" and demoting everyone else to the status of prisoners under constant suspicion and surveillance. False narratives convince people to accept the idea that men and women can and should be locked up and denied their freedom for possessing certain plants or mushrooms known to induce a state of ecstasy. This is a violation of natural law in that it uses force to prohibit behavior that in no way harms the person or property of another or infringes on another's rights. False narratives convince people to accept the idea that men and women representing the government and wearing military gear and driving military vehicles can point military weapons at people assembling in the streets to express themselves, or at people in their homes in a neighborhood where fugitives are supposedly hiding. These are clear violations of natural law in that such actions basically declare that force can be used against citizens whenever it is convenient for the government to say there is a need to do so, an idea which Spooner eloquently demolishes in pages 27 and 28 of his text against the Fugitive Slave Acts. In a passage labeled "Section IV" of his 1882 treatise on Natural Law, Spooner declares that the rights belonging to every human being by the unchangeable principle of justice "necessarily remain with him [or her] during life," and although these rights are "capable of being trampled upon" they are nevertheless "incapable of being blotted out, extinguished, annihilated, or separated from" each and every human being, and that there is no authority high enough to simply declare them null or void. False narratives have even apparently convinced some people that it is somehow excusable to cover up evidence of the potentially harmful effects of vaccines on certain children in order to support "herd immunity." All of the above examples, along with the many other violations of natural law currently taking place, are enabled and excused by a variety of false realities or false narratives, created and maintained in order to lend an air of legitimacy to these violations. So were many other horrendous violations of natural law which were enabled by false narratives and illusions throughout history, including the enslavement of Africans which Spooner argued against in the 1850s, to the destruction of Native American tribes in the western US after the end of the US Civil War and the seizure of their lands and their confinement to reservations or "agencies," to the seizure of the Hawaiian Islands and the Philippines in the years after that, and on and on right up to the present. All of the above examples were enabled by lies, illusions, and false narratives or false realities. For more on breaking through illusions and false realities, and creating new realities, see for example this previous post entitled "Jon Rappoport's talk on the trickster-god and creating reality." It is one of Lysander Spooner's singular contributions that he perceived and forcefully argued that a criminal "law" is no law at all, and that men and women have the right and the duty to treat it as such, and to inform others of their right to do the same. Putting something on paper doesn't make it a "law" -- even if it has been adorned with all the necessary stamps and signatures. As Spooner alludes in the writings linked above, the US Constitution as originally designed, and especially the Bill of Rights as originally conceived, were designed to safeguard natural-law rights in many ways, and to the extent that Schoolhouse Rock taught those principles to a new generation in the 1970s, it can be commended. Perhaps Spooner's arguments about an illegal law being no law at all could not really be expected to be squeezed into the "I'm Just a Bill" song. But Lysander Spooner's arguments deserve to be brought into the modern era, in much the same way that the creators of Schoolhouse Rock tried to speak to the younger generation of the 1970s using the language and imagery of the 1970s. Spooner's arguments on behalf of the individual's rights under natural law -- rights which could never be abridged by any authority -- and his arguments against the creation of arbitrary "laws" which everyone has to obey just because a legislature or a president gave them the title of a "law" deserve examination, consideration, and thoughtful debate today more than ever. And the false narratives supporting so-called laws which supposedly authorize some people to use violence against others, or to threaten violence against others, or to take away the freedom of others when those others have not done anything to harm anyone else's persons or property, must be shown to be the form of mind control that they are. No individuals or groups can give themselves the right to violate natural law and in doing so to infringe on anyone else's rights, simply by writing something down on a "sad little scrap of paper."

<urn:uuid:17474726-e53e-48c9-a980-028439f26526>

CC-MAIN-2018-13

http://www.starmythworld.com/mathisencorollary/2014/09/does-writing-something-on-piece-of.html

s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2018-13/segments/1521257647892.89/warc/CC-MAIN-20180322151300-20180322171300-00710.warc.gz

en

<urn:uuid:17474726-e53e-48c9-a980-028439f26526>_31

Thus, in Spooner's view, any so-called law that goes beyond the legal duties in the left column (or, worse yet, directly contradicts and violates those legal duties, as did the Fugitive Slave Acts) is actually no law at all and it can and must be disobeyed as illegal and criminal, regardless of whether it was written down on paper using legal-sounding language and passed by men and women in fancy buildings and stamped with fancy stamps and inscribed with fancy signatures.

"Whew! You sure gotta climb a lot of steps to get to the Capitol Building here in Washington. Well I wonder who that sad little scrap of paper is?" And with those words began one of my childhood favorite Schoolhouse Rock videos, which used to be on television back in the early 1970s when I wasn't really old enough to have any idea what exactly they were all about, or why they would sometimes show up in between episodes of Superfriends, Speed Racer, or Sigmund and the Sea Monsters. In I'm just a bill," we witness the progress by which "that sad little scrap of paper" receives a fancy seal and a president's signature and becomes a law ("He signed ya, Bill: Now you're a Law!"). Although the video does an admirable job depicting some of the checks and balances contained in the US Constitution, through which the members of both houses of the legislature must agree to send the bill forward to the executive branch for final approval before any proposed bill is signed into law, it does tend to convey the impression that any "good idea" can be transformed into "a Law" through the magical process of being debated by important-looking men in impressive-looking buildings with lots of steps and Greek columns, on top of high hills (and filled with long rows of impassive US Marines in dress blue uniforms, and statues of distinguished statesmen from previous generations), signed by the president using a fountain pen, and affixed with a shiny-looking seal with a ribbon. Nineteenth-century abolitionist, legal scholar and philosopher Lysander Spooner (1808 - 1887) would vehemently disagree that something becomes "a law" just because it goes through the above process and receives a president's signature and a fancy stamp. In fact, he published a treatise in 1850 entitled A Defence for Fugitive Slaves against the Acts of Congress of February 12, 1793 and September 18, 1850, in which he argued that an illegal law is no law at all, and confers no obligation on anyone to obey it, nor any authority to anyone desiring to enforce it. He begins his treatise with the complete copy of each of the two acts in question, both of which were considered "law" in 1850, compelling men or women who knew of a "fugitive slave" to help catch that "fugitive slave" or face penalties including fines and imprisonment (the term "slave" is put in quotation marks here because Spooner argues that no person can ever own another person, and that there actually is no such thing as a legal slave or the legal condition of slavery, all so-called "laws" which make one person the property of another being illegal and criminal). Those two so-called laws (the Fugitive Slave Act of 1793 and the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850) were both signed by the presidents of their day, George Washington in the first instance and Millard Fillmore in the second (they also bear the signatures of the respective Speakers of the House and Presidents of the Senate). But these signatures do not make them true laws, according to Spooner's arguments. Spooner demonstrates that holding anyone else as property is a crime, and that putting something on paper, stamping it with fancy seals, embellishing it with fancy legal language, and endorsing it with the signatures of people bearing impressive titles does not make it into law: it's still just a "sad little scrap of paper" in his eyes. He even goes so far as to say that men and women have the right to resist illegal laws, in what is undoubtedly among the most important sections of his argument, found on pages 27 and 28. There, he powerfully dismantles the counter-arguments that he anticipates from those who would argue that once something is "a law," it must be obeyed until it is repealed. If it were really true that an illegal or unconstitutional law must be obeyed until repealed, he reasons, then "there would therefore be no difference at all between a constitutional and an unconstitutional law, in respect to their binding force; and that would be equivalent to abolishing the constitution, and giving to the government unlimited power" (28). Those who would disagree with Lysander Spooner on this point are invited to participate in a mental experiment, in which they imagine that the president has signed a law saying that if you in any way hinder the search for an escaped slave, or in any way assist a person who has been designated a "slave" and who has run away and is hiding from the authorities, then you yourself are a criminal and can be subject to enormous fines and imprisonment. Note that this is not just a hypothetical scenario: the first and the thirteenth presidents of the United States each signed such a proposition into "law." Today, nobody reading this blog would likely argue that they would feel a moral duty to obey such a "law," or that they would have to actually support it until such time as they could eventually get it repealed through the same arduous process depicted in the Schoolhouse Rock video shown above. Nearly every man or woman would agree with Spooner that the institution of slavery and "laws" enforcing one person's ability to "own" another are not laws but rather outrageous crimes, and would reject the notion that writing such a "law" down on a piece of paper, stamping it with a pretty seal and adding some flowery signatures suddenly turns it into something that must be willingly and voluntarily obeyed until it can be debated and eventually repealed. Writing something on a piece of paper does not make it a law. But, if this is true, then what does make something a law? Lysander Spooner argued that the actions of men and women cannot actually make anything a law, but that there is already an immutable or unchangeable universal law which he called "Natural Law" or the "Science of Justice." He believed that human society should only enforce natural law, and not dream up additional or "artificial" laws, and that trying to add to or subtract from the natural law is as foolish as trying to add to or subtract from other natural laws, such as the law of gravity. He argued that men and women could voluntarily band together to help ensure compliance with this natural law among their group, but that they could not compel others to join that voluntary association. Even within such a voluntary association, he believed that people or groups could only rightly compel compliance with the natural law, which was generally extremely simple and basically entailed the command to "live honestly, hurt no one, and give everyone his or her due." In an 1882 publication entitled Natural Law; or The Science of Justice, Spooner set out to explain the concept of natural law. In it, he made a distinction between those things that everyone has a legal duty to either do or to refrain from doing, and which others can and must compel in others, and those things which everyone has a moral duty to do but which must be left up to each person's own judgment and which no one has the right or duty to compel. Below is a table based upon Spooner's 1882 text, generally following the order and wording of his argument: The left column (labeled "Legal Duty" and highlighted in yellow), in Spooner's view, constitutes those things which are part of the natural law, and can actually be the only things which anyone can rightfully use force to uphold. He says that everyone has a duty to refrain from injuring others, and that force may and must be used when someone sees someone else in the act of injuring someone else. Spooner further argues in that 1882 text that nearly everyone understands these natural law prohibitions and duties before they are even old enough to know that "three and three are six, or five and five ten" (9). The right column (labeled "Moral Duty" and highlighted in green), in Spooner's view, constitutes those things which we do have a moral duty to perform, but which no one else can compel us to do: we must judge the extent to which we are able to do those things, and how we wish to best accomplish them when we do decide to do them. Thus, in Spooner's view, any so-called law that goes beyond the legal duties in the left column (or, worse yet, directly contradicts and violates those legal duties, as did the Fugitive Slave Acts) is actually no law at all and it can and must be disobeyed as illegal and criminal, regardless of whether it was written down on paper using legal-sounding language and passed by men and women in fancy buildings and stamped with fancy stamps and inscribed with fancy signatures. At this point, the reader may be thinking that all of this is very nice, but what on earth does it have to do with the general subject matter covered in this blog? The answer is: everything. Because, as insightful thinkers such as Mark Passio have articulated, violations of natural law are so contrary to our innate understanding of right and wrong (remember that Spooner says we know it before we even know that 3 + 3 = 6) that artificial laws which violate natural law must always be dressed up with various symbols and word-formulas designed to convey legitimacy, and reinforced by systems of mind control by which men and women who should know that those violations are immoral can somehow be made to believe that those violations of natural law are instead right and good and deserving of support. Institutionalized violations of natural law are nearly always accompanied by powerful forms of illusion, or the creation of "false realities" that enable those violations to appear legitimate, and to get people to go along with them. Therefore, seeing through these false realities is of absolutely primary importance. This blog primarily examines false realities which can be seen operating all around us, including in the realm of conventional history as taught in all the institutions of academia and reinforced by the organs of the conventional media (see for example "Piercing the fog of deception that hides the contours of history" and also the two short videos entitled "The importance of challenging false narratives"). These false realities or false narratives which cause people to accept gross violations of natural law are operating today with just as much force as they were operating in Spooner's day -- perhaps even more so. False narratives assist in getting people to accept the premise that so-called "laws" permitting government surveillance of individual men and women at virtually any time and place are legitimate (see here and here). This is a violation of natural law in that it enables hidden enforcers and observers to treat individuals as criminals on the suspicion that they might do something to harm others, elevating some to the status of "prison guards" and demoting everyone else to the status of prisoners under constant suspicion and surveillance. False narratives convince people to accept the idea that men and women can and should be locked up and denied their freedom for possessing certain plants or mushrooms known to induce a state of ecstasy. This is a violation of natural law in that it uses force to prohibit behavior that in no way harms the person or property of another or infringes on another's rights. False narratives convince people to accept the idea that men and women representing the government and wearing military gear and driving military vehicles can point military weapons at people assembling in the streets to express themselves, or at people in their homes in a neighborhood where fugitives are supposedly hiding. These are clear violations of natural law in that such actions basically declare that force can be used against citizens whenever it is convenient for the government to say there is a need to do so, an idea which Spooner eloquently demolishes in pages 27 and 28 of his text against the Fugitive Slave Acts. In a passage labeled "Section IV" of his 1882 treatise on Natural Law, Spooner declares that the rights belonging to every human being by the unchangeable principle of justice "necessarily remain with him [or her] during life," and although these rights are "capable of being trampled upon" they are nevertheless "incapable of being blotted out, extinguished, annihilated, or separated from" each and every human being, and that there is no authority high enough to simply declare them null or void. False narratives have even apparently convinced some people that it is somehow excusable to cover up evidence of the potentially harmful effects of vaccines on certain children in order to support "herd immunity." All of the above examples, along with the many other violations of natural law currently taking place, are enabled and excused by a variety of false realities or false narratives, created and maintained in order to lend an air of legitimacy to these violations. So were many other horrendous violations of natural law which were enabled by false narratives and illusions throughout history, including the enslavement of Africans which Spooner argued against in the 1850s, to the destruction of Native American tribes in the western US after the end of the US Civil War and the seizure of their lands and their confinement to reservations or "agencies," to the seizure of the Hawaiian Islands and the Philippines in the years after that, and on and on right up to the present. All of the above examples were enabled by lies, illusions, and false narratives or false realities. For more on breaking through illusions and false realities, and creating new realities, see for example this previous post entitled "Jon Rappoport's talk on the trickster-god and creating reality." It is one of Lysander Spooner's singular contributions that he perceived and forcefully argued that a criminal "law" is no law at all, and that men and women have the right and the duty to treat it as such, and to inform others of their right to do the same. Putting something on paper doesn't make it a "law" -- even if it has been adorned with all the necessary stamps and signatures. As Spooner alludes in the writings linked above, the US Constitution as originally designed, and especially the Bill of Rights as originally conceived, were designed to safeguard natural-law rights in many ways, and to the extent that Schoolhouse Rock taught those principles to a new generation in the 1970s, it can be commended. Perhaps Spooner's arguments about an illegal law being no law at all could not really be expected to be squeezed into the "I'm Just a Bill" song. But Lysander Spooner's arguments deserve to be brought into the modern era, in much the same way that the creators of Schoolhouse Rock tried to speak to the younger generation of the 1970s using the language and imagery of the 1970s. Spooner's arguments on behalf of the individual's rights under natural law -- rights which could never be abridged by any authority -- and his arguments against the creation of arbitrary "laws" which everyone has to obey just because a legislature or a president gave them the title of a "law" deserve examination, consideration, and thoughtful debate today more than ever. And the false narratives supporting so-called laws which supposedly authorize some people to use violence against others, or to threaten violence against others, or to take away the freedom of others when those others have not done anything to harm anyone else's persons or property, must be shown to be the form of mind control that they are. No individuals or groups can give themselves the right to violate natural law and in doing so to infringe on anyone else's rights, simply by writing something down on a "sad little scrap of paper."

<urn:uuid:17474726-e53e-48c9-a980-028439f26526>

CC-MAIN-2018-13

http://www.starmythworld.com/mathisencorollary/2014/09/does-writing-something-on-piece-of.html

s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2018-13/segments/1521257647892.89/warc/CC-MAIN-20180322151300-20180322171300-00710.warc.gz

en

<urn:uuid:17474726-e53e-48c9-a980-028439f26526>_32

At this point, the reader may be thinking that all of this is very nice, but what on earth does it have to do with the general subject matter covered in this blog?

"Whew! You sure gotta climb a lot of steps to get to the Capitol Building here in Washington. Well I wonder who that sad little scrap of paper is?" And with those words began one of my childhood favorite Schoolhouse Rock videos, which used to be on television back in the early 1970s when I wasn't really old enough to have any idea what exactly they were all about, or why they would sometimes show up in between episodes of Superfriends, Speed Racer, or Sigmund and the Sea Monsters. In I'm just a bill," we witness the progress by which "that sad little scrap of paper" receives a fancy seal and a president's signature and becomes a law ("He signed ya, Bill: Now you're a Law!"). Although the video does an admirable job depicting some of the checks and balances contained in the US Constitution, through which the members of both houses of the legislature must agree to send the bill forward to the executive branch for final approval before any proposed bill is signed into law, it does tend to convey the impression that any "good idea" can be transformed into "a Law" through the magical process of being debated by important-looking men in impressive-looking buildings with lots of steps and Greek columns, on top of high hills (and filled with long rows of impassive US Marines in dress blue uniforms, and statues of distinguished statesmen from previous generations), signed by the president using a fountain pen, and affixed with a shiny-looking seal with a ribbon. Nineteenth-century abolitionist, legal scholar and philosopher Lysander Spooner (1808 - 1887) would vehemently disagree that something becomes "a law" just because it goes through the above process and receives a president's signature and a fancy stamp. In fact, he published a treatise in 1850 entitled A Defence for Fugitive Slaves against the Acts of Congress of February 12, 1793 and September 18, 1850, in which he argued that an illegal law is no law at all, and confers no obligation on anyone to obey it, nor any authority to anyone desiring to enforce it. He begins his treatise with the complete copy of each of the two acts in question, both of which were considered "law" in 1850, compelling men or women who knew of a "fugitive slave" to help catch that "fugitive slave" or face penalties including fines and imprisonment (the term "slave" is put in quotation marks here because Spooner argues that no person can ever own another person, and that there actually is no such thing as a legal slave or the legal condition of slavery, all so-called "laws" which make one person the property of another being illegal and criminal). Those two so-called laws (the Fugitive Slave Act of 1793 and the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850) were both signed by the presidents of their day, George Washington in the first instance and Millard Fillmore in the second (they also bear the signatures of the respective Speakers of the House and Presidents of the Senate). But these signatures do not make them true laws, according to Spooner's arguments. Spooner demonstrates that holding anyone else as property is a crime, and that putting something on paper, stamping it with fancy seals, embellishing it with fancy legal language, and endorsing it with the signatures of people bearing impressive titles does not make it into law: it's still just a "sad little scrap of paper" in his eyes. He even goes so far as to say that men and women have the right to resist illegal laws, in what is undoubtedly among the most important sections of his argument, found on pages 27 and 28. There, he powerfully dismantles the counter-arguments that he anticipates from those who would argue that once something is "a law," it must be obeyed until it is repealed. If it were really true that an illegal or unconstitutional law must be obeyed until repealed, he reasons, then "there would therefore be no difference at all between a constitutional and an unconstitutional law, in respect to their binding force; and that would be equivalent to abolishing the constitution, and giving to the government unlimited power" (28). Those who would disagree with Lysander Spooner on this point are invited to participate in a mental experiment, in which they imagine that the president has signed a law saying that if you in any way hinder the search for an escaped slave, or in any way assist a person who has been designated a "slave" and who has run away and is hiding from the authorities, then you yourself are a criminal and can be subject to enormous fines and imprisonment. Note that this is not just a hypothetical scenario: the first and the thirteenth presidents of the United States each signed such a proposition into "law." Today, nobody reading this blog would likely argue that they would feel a moral duty to obey such a "law," or that they would have to actually support it until such time as they could eventually get it repealed through the same arduous process depicted in the Schoolhouse Rock video shown above. Nearly every man or woman would agree with Spooner that the institution of slavery and "laws" enforcing one person's ability to "own" another are not laws but rather outrageous crimes, and would reject the notion that writing such a "law" down on a piece of paper, stamping it with a pretty seal and adding some flowery signatures suddenly turns it into something that must be willingly and voluntarily obeyed until it can be debated and eventually repealed. Writing something on a piece of paper does not make it a law. But, if this is true, then what does make something a law? Lysander Spooner argued that the actions of men and women cannot actually make anything a law, but that there is already an immutable or unchangeable universal law which he called "Natural Law" or the "Science of Justice." He believed that human society should only enforce natural law, and not dream up additional or "artificial" laws, and that trying to add to or subtract from the natural law is as foolish as trying to add to or subtract from other natural laws, such as the law of gravity. He argued that men and women could voluntarily band together to help ensure compliance with this natural law among their group, but that they could not compel others to join that voluntary association. Even within such a voluntary association, he believed that people or groups could only rightly compel compliance with the natural law, which was generally extremely simple and basically entailed the command to "live honestly, hurt no one, and give everyone his or her due." In an 1882 publication entitled Natural Law; or The Science of Justice, Spooner set out to explain the concept of natural law. In it, he made a distinction between those things that everyone has a legal duty to either do or to refrain from doing, and which others can and must compel in others, and those things which everyone has a moral duty to do but which must be left up to each person's own judgment and which no one has the right or duty to compel. Below is a table based upon Spooner's 1882 text, generally following the order and wording of his argument: The left column (labeled "Legal Duty" and highlighted in yellow), in Spooner's view, constitutes those things which are part of the natural law, and can actually be the only things which anyone can rightfully use force to uphold. He says that everyone has a duty to refrain from injuring others, and that force may and must be used when someone sees someone else in the act of injuring someone else. Spooner further argues in that 1882 text that nearly everyone understands these natural law prohibitions and duties before they are even old enough to know that "three and three are six, or five and five ten" (9). The right column (labeled "Moral Duty" and highlighted in green), in Spooner's view, constitutes those things which we do have a moral duty to perform, but which no one else can compel us to do: we must judge the extent to which we are able to do those things, and how we wish to best accomplish them when we do decide to do them. Thus, in Spooner's view, any so-called law that goes beyond the legal duties in the left column (or, worse yet, directly contradicts and violates those legal duties, as did the Fugitive Slave Acts) is actually no law at all and it can and must be disobeyed as illegal and criminal, regardless of whether it was written down on paper using legal-sounding language and passed by men and women in fancy buildings and stamped with fancy stamps and inscribed with fancy signatures. At this point, the reader may be thinking that all of this is very nice, but what on earth does it have to do with the general subject matter covered in this blog? The answer is: everything. Because, as insightful thinkers such as Mark Passio have articulated, violations of natural law are so contrary to our innate understanding of right and wrong (remember that Spooner says we know it before we even know that 3 + 3 = 6) that artificial laws which violate natural law must always be dressed up with various symbols and word-formulas designed to convey legitimacy, and reinforced by systems of mind control by which men and women who should know that those violations are immoral can somehow be made to believe that those violations of natural law are instead right and good and deserving of support. Institutionalized violations of natural law are nearly always accompanied by powerful forms of illusion, or the creation of "false realities" that enable those violations to appear legitimate, and to get people to go along with them. Therefore, seeing through these false realities is of absolutely primary importance. This blog primarily examines false realities which can be seen operating all around us, including in the realm of conventional history as taught in all the institutions of academia and reinforced by the organs of the conventional media (see for example "Piercing the fog of deception that hides the contours of history" and also the two short videos entitled "The importance of challenging false narratives"). These false realities or false narratives which cause people to accept gross violations of natural law are operating today with just as much force as they were operating in Spooner's day -- perhaps even more so. False narratives assist in getting people to accept the premise that so-called "laws" permitting government surveillance of individual men and women at virtually any time and place are legitimate (see here and here). This is a violation of natural law in that it enables hidden enforcers and observers to treat individuals as criminals on the suspicion that they might do something to harm others, elevating some to the status of "prison guards" and demoting everyone else to the status of prisoners under constant suspicion and surveillance. False narratives convince people to accept the idea that men and women can and should be locked up and denied their freedom for possessing certain plants or mushrooms known to induce a state of ecstasy. This is a violation of natural law in that it uses force to prohibit behavior that in no way harms the person or property of another or infringes on another's rights. False narratives convince people to accept the idea that men and women representing the government and wearing military gear and driving military vehicles can point military weapons at people assembling in the streets to express themselves, or at people in their homes in a neighborhood where fugitives are supposedly hiding. These are clear violations of natural law in that such actions basically declare that force can be used against citizens whenever it is convenient for the government to say there is a need to do so, an idea which Spooner eloquently demolishes in pages 27 and 28 of his text against the Fugitive Slave Acts. In a passage labeled "Section IV" of his 1882 treatise on Natural Law, Spooner declares that the rights belonging to every human being by the unchangeable principle of justice "necessarily remain with him [or her] during life," and although these rights are "capable of being trampled upon" they are nevertheless "incapable of being blotted out, extinguished, annihilated, or separated from" each and every human being, and that there is no authority high enough to simply declare them null or void. False narratives have even apparently convinced some people that it is somehow excusable to cover up evidence of the potentially harmful effects of vaccines on certain children in order to support "herd immunity." All of the above examples, along with the many other violations of natural law currently taking place, are enabled and excused by a variety of false realities or false narratives, created and maintained in order to lend an air of legitimacy to these violations. So were many other horrendous violations of natural law which were enabled by false narratives and illusions throughout history, including the enslavement of Africans which Spooner argued against in the 1850s, to the destruction of Native American tribes in the western US after the end of the US Civil War and the seizure of their lands and their confinement to reservations or "agencies," to the seizure of the Hawaiian Islands and the Philippines in the years after that, and on and on right up to the present. All of the above examples were enabled by lies, illusions, and false narratives or false realities. For more on breaking through illusions and false realities, and creating new realities, see for example this previous post entitled "Jon Rappoport's talk on the trickster-god and creating reality." It is one of Lysander Spooner's singular contributions that he perceived and forcefully argued that a criminal "law" is no law at all, and that men and women have the right and the duty to treat it as such, and to inform others of their right to do the same. Putting something on paper doesn't make it a "law" -- even if it has been adorned with all the necessary stamps and signatures. As Spooner alludes in the writings linked above, the US Constitution as originally designed, and especially the Bill of Rights as originally conceived, were designed to safeguard natural-law rights in many ways, and to the extent that Schoolhouse Rock taught those principles to a new generation in the 1970s, it can be commended. Perhaps Spooner's arguments about an illegal law being no law at all could not really be expected to be squeezed into the "I'm Just a Bill" song. But Lysander Spooner's arguments deserve to be brought into the modern era, in much the same way that the creators of Schoolhouse Rock tried to speak to the younger generation of the 1970s using the language and imagery of the 1970s. Spooner's arguments on behalf of the individual's rights under natural law -- rights which could never be abridged by any authority -- and his arguments against the creation of arbitrary "laws" which everyone has to obey just because a legislature or a president gave them the title of a "law" deserve examination, consideration, and thoughtful debate today more than ever. And the false narratives supporting so-called laws which supposedly authorize some people to use violence against others, or to threaten violence against others, or to take away the freedom of others when those others have not done anything to harm anyone else's persons or property, must be shown to be the form of mind control that they are. No individuals or groups can give themselves the right to violate natural law and in doing so to infringe on anyone else's rights, simply by writing something down on a "sad little scrap of paper."

<urn:uuid:17474726-e53e-48c9-a980-028439f26526>

CC-MAIN-2018-13

http://www.starmythworld.com/mathisencorollary/2014/09/does-writing-something-on-piece-of.html

s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2018-13/segments/1521257647892.89/warc/CC-MAIN-20180322151300-20180322171300-00710.warc.gz

en

<urn:uuid:17474726-e53e-48c9-a980-028439f26526>_35

Institutionalized violations of natural law are nearly always accompanied by powerful forms of illusion, or the creation of "false realities" that enable those violations to appear legitimate, and to get people to go along with them.

"Whew! You sure gotta climb a lot of steps to get to the Capitol Building here in Washington. Well I wonder who that sad little scrap of paper is?" And with those words began one of my childhood favorite Schoolhouse Rock videos, which used to be on television back in the early 1970s when I wasn't really old enough to have any idea what exactly they were all about, or why they would sometimes show up in between episodes of Superfriends, Speed Racer, or Sigmund and the Sea Monsters. In I'm just a bill," we witness the progress by which "that sad little scrap of paper" receives a fancy seal and a president's signature and becomes a law ("He signed ya, Bill: Now you're a Law!"). Although the video does an admirable job depicting some of the checks and balances contained in the US Constitution, through which the members of both houses of the legislature must agree to send the bill forward to the executive branch for final approval before any proposed bill is signed into law, it does tend to convey the impression that any "good idea" can be transformed into "a Law" through the magical process of being debated by important-looking men in impressive-looking buildings with lots of steps and Greek columns, on top of high hills (and filled with long rows of impassive US Marines in dress blue uniforms, and statues of distinguished statesmen from previous generations), signed by the president using a fountain pen, and affixed with a shiny-looking seal with a ribbon. Nineteenth-century abolitionist, legal scholar and philosopher Lysander Spooner (1808 - 1887) would vehemently disagree that something becomes "a law" just because it goes through the above process and receives a president's signature and a fancy stamp. In fact, he published a treatise in 1850 entitled A Defence for Fugitive Slaves against the Acts of Congress of February 12, 1793 and September 18, 1850, in which he argued that an illegal law is no law at all, and confers no obligation on anyone to obey it, nor any authority to anyone desiring to enforce it. He begins his treatise with the complete copy of each of the two acts in question, both of which were considered "law" in 1850, compelling men or women who knew of a "fugitive slave" to help catch that "fugitive slave" or face penalties including fines and imprisonment (the term "slave" is put in quotation marks here because Spooner argues that no person can ever own another person, and that there actually is no such thing as a legal slave or the legal condition of slavery, all so-called "laws" which make one person the property of another being illegal and criminal). Those two so-called laws (the Fugitive Slave Act of 1793 and the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850) were both signed by the presidents of their day, George Washington in the first instance and Millard Fillmore in the second (they also bear the signatures of the respective Speakers of the House and Presidents of the Senate). But these signatures do not make them true laws, according to Spooner's arguments. Spooner demonstrates that holding anyone else as property is a crime, and that putting something on paper, stamping it with fancy seals, embellishing it with fancy legal language, and endorsing it with the signatures of people bearing impressive titles does not make it into law: it's still just a "sad little scrap of paper" in his eyes. He even goes so far as to say that men and women have the right to resist illegal laws, in what is undoubtedly among the most important sections of his argument, found on pages 27 and 28. There, he powerfully dismantles the counter-arguments that he anticipates from those who would argue that once something is "a law," it must be obeyed until it is repealed. If it were really true that an illegal or unconstitutional law must be obeyed until repealed, he reasons, then "there would therefore be no difference at all between a constitutional and an unconstitutional law, in respect to their binding force; and that would be equivalent to abolishing the constitution, and giving to the government unlimited power" (28). Those who would disagree with Lysander Spooner on this point are invited to participate in a mental experiment, in which they imagine that the president has signed a law saying that if you in any way hinder the search for an escaped slave, or in any way assist a person who has been designated a "slave" and who has run away and is hiding from the authorities, then you yourself are a criminal and can be subject to enormous fines and imprisonment. Note that this is not just a hypothetical scenario: the first and the thirteenth presidents of the United States each signed such a proposition into "law." Today, nobody reading this blog would likely argue that they would feel a moral duty to obey such a "law," or that they would have to actually support it until such time as they could eventually get it repealed through the same arduous process depicted in the Schoolhouse Rock video shown above. Nearly every man or woman would agree with Spooner that the institution of slavery and "laws" enforcing one person's ability to "own" another are not laws but rather outrageous crimes, and would reject the notion that writing such a "law" down on a piece of paper, stamping it with a pretty seal and adding some flowery signatures suddenly turns it into something that must be willingly and voluntarily obeyed until it can be debated and eventually repealed. Writing something on a piece of paper does not make it a law. But, if this is true, then what does make something a law? Lysander Spooner argued that the actions of men and women cannot actually make anything a law, but that there is already an immutable or unchangeable universal law which he called "Natural Law" or the "Science of Justice." He believed that human society should only enforce natural law, and not dream up additional or "artificial" laws, and that trying to add to or subtract from the natural law is as foolish as trying to add to or subtract from other natural laws, such as the law of gravity. He argued that men and women could voluntarily band together to help ensure compliance with this natural law among their group, but that they could not compel others to join that voluntary association. Even within such a voluntary association, he believed that people or groups could only rightly compel compliance with the natural law, which was generally extremely simple and basically entailed the command to "live honestly, hurt no one, and give everyone his or her due." In an 1882 publication entitled Natural Law; or The Science of Justice, Spooner set out to explain the concept of natural law. In it, he made a distinction between those things that everyone has a legal duty to either do or to refrain from doing, and which others can and must compel in others, and those things which everyone has a moral duty to do but which must be left up to each person's own judgment and which no one has the right or duty to compel. Below is a table based upon Spooner's 1882 text, generally following the order and wording of his argument: The left column (labeled "Legal Duty" and highlighted in yellow), in Spooner's view, constitutes those things which are part of the natural law, and can actually be the only things which anyone can rightfully use force to uphold. He says that everyone has a duty to refrain from injuring others, and that force may and must be used when someone sees someone else in the act of injuring someone else. Spooner further argues in that 1882 text that nearly everyone understands these natural law prohibitions and duties before they are even old enough to know that "three and three are six, or five and five ten" (9). The right column (labeled "Moral Duty" and highlighted in green), in Spooner's view, constitutes those things which we do have a moral duty to perform, but which no one else can compel us to do: we must judge the extent to which we are able to do those things, and how we wish to best accomplish them when we do decide to do them. Thus, in Spooner's view, any so-called law that goes beyond the legal duties in the left column (or, worse yet, directly contradicts and violates those legal duties, as did the Fugitive Slave Acts) is actually no law at all and it can and must be disobeyed as illegal and criminal, regardless of whether it was written down on paper using legal-sounding language and passed by men and women in fancy buildings and stamped with fancy stamps and inscribed with fancy signatures. At this point, the reader may be thinking that all of this is very nice, but what on earth does it have to do with the general subject matter covered in this blog? The answer is: everything. Because, as insightful thinkers such as Mark Passio have articulated, violations of natural law are so contrary to our innate understanding of right and wrong (remember that Spooner says we know it before we even know that 3 + 3 = 6) that artificial laws which violate natural law must always be dressed up with various symbols and word-formulas designed to convey legitimacy, and reinforced by systems of mind control by which men and women who should know that those violations are immoral can somehow be made to believe that those violations of natural law are instead right and good and deserving of support. Institutionalized violations of natural law are nearly always accompanied by powerful forms of illusion, or the creation of "false realities" that enable those violations to appear legitimate, and to get people to go along with them. Therefore, seeing through these false realities is of absolutely primary importance. This blog primarily examines false realities which can be seen operating all around us, including in the realm of conventional history as taught in all the institutions of academia and reinforced by the organs of the conventional media (see for example "Piercing the fog of deception that hides the contours of history" and also the two short videos entitled "The importance of challenging false narratives"). These false realities or false narratives which cause people to accept gross violations of natural law are operating today with just as much force as they were operating in Spooner's day -- perhaps even more so. False narratives assist in getting people to accept the premise that so-called "laws" permitting government surveillance of individual men and women at virtually any time and place are legitimate (see here and here). This is a violation of natural law in that it enables hidden enforcers and observers to treat individuals as criminals on the suspicion that they might do something to harm others, elevating some to the status of "prison guards" and demoting everyone else to the status of prisoners under constant suspicion and surveillance. False narratives convince people to accept the idea that men and women can and should be locked up and denied their freedom for possessing certain plants or mushrooms known to induce a state of ecstasy. This is a violation of natural law in that it uses force to prohibit behavior that in no way harms the person or property of another or infringes on another's rights. False narratives convince people to accept the idea that men and women representing the government and wearing military gear and driving military vehicles can point military weapons at people assembling in the streets to express themselves, or at people in their homes in a neighborhood where fugitives are supposedly hiding. These are clear violations of natural law in that such actions basically declare that force can be used against citizens whenever it is convenient for the government to say there is a need to do so, an idea which Spooner eloquently demolishes in pages 27 and 28 of his text against the Fugitive Slave Acts. In a passage labeled "Section IV" of his 1882 treatise on Natural Law, Spooner declares that the rights belonging to every human being by the unchangeable principle of justice "necessarily remain with him [or her] during life," and although these rights are "capable of being trampled upon" they are nevertheless "incapable of being blotted out, extinguished, annihilated, or separated from" each and every human being, and that there is no authority high enough to simply declare them null or void. False narratives have even apparently convinced some people that it is somehow excusable to cover up evidence of the potentially harmful effects of vaccines on certain children in order to support "herd immunity." All of the above examples, along with the many other violations of natural law currently taking place, are enabled and excused by a variety of false realities or false narratives, created and maintained in order to lend an air of legitimacy to these violations. So were many other horrendous violations of natural law which were enabled by false narratives and illusions throughout history, including the enslavement of Africans which Spooner argued against in the 1850s, to the destruction of Native American tribes in the western US after the end of the US Civil War and the seizure of their lands and their confinement to reservations or "agencies," to the seizure of the Hawaiian Islands and the Philippines in the years after that, and on and on right up to the present. All of the above examples were enabled by lies, illusions, and false narratives or false realities. For more on breaking through illusions and false realities, and creating new realities, see for example this previous post entitled "Jon Rappoport's talk on the trickster-god and creating reality." It is one of Lysander Spooner's singular contributions that he perceived and forcefully argued that a criminal "law" is no law at all, and that men and women have the right and the duty to treat it as such, and to inform others of their right to do the same. Putting something on paper doesn't make it a "law" -- even if it has been adorned with all the necessary stamps and signatures. As Spooner alludes in the writings linked above, the US Constitution as originally designed, and especially the Bill of Rights as originally conceived, were designed to safeguard natural-law rights in many ways, and to the extent that Schoolhouse Rock taught those principles to a new generation in the 1970s, it can be commended. Perhaps Spooner's arguments about an illegal law being no law at all could not really be expected to be squeezed into the "I'm Just a Bill" song. But Lysander Spooner's arguments deserve to be brought into the modern era, in much the same way that the creators of Schoolhouse Rock tried to speak to the younger generation of the 1970s using the language and imagery of the 1970s. Spooner's arguments on behalf of the individual's rights under natural law -- rights which could never be abridged by any authority -- and his arguments against the creation of arbitrary "laws" which everyone has to obey just because a legislature or a president gave them the title of a "law" deserve examination, consideration, and thoughtful debate today more than ever. And the false narratives supporting so-called laws which supposedly authorize some people to use violence against others, or to threaten violence against others, or to take away the freedom of others when those others have not done anything to harm anyone else's persons or property, must be shown to be the form of mind control that they are. No individuals or groups can give themselves the right to violate natural law and in doing so to infringe on anyone else's rights, simply by writing something down on a "sad little scrap of paper."

<urn:uuid:17474726-e53e-48c9-a980-028439f26526>

CC-MAIN-2018-13

http://www.starmythworld.com/mathisencorollary/2014/09/does-writing-something-on-piece-of.html

s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2018-13/segments/1521257647892.89/warc/CC-MAIN-20180322151300-20180322171300-00710.warc.gz

en

<urn:uuid:17474726-e53e-48c9-a980-028439f26526>_36

Therefore, seeing through these false realities is of absolutely primary importance.

"Whew! You sure gotta climb a lot of steps to get to the Capitol Building here in Washington. Well I wonder who that sad little scrap of paper is?" And with those words began one of my childhood favorite Schoolhouse Rock videos, which used to be on television back in the early 1970s when I wasn't really old enough to have any idea what exactly they were all about, or why they would sometimes show up in between episodes of Superfriends, Speed Racer, or Sigmund and the Sea Monsters. In I'm just a bill," we witness the progress by which "that sad little scrap of paper" receives a fancy seal and a president's signature and becomes a law ("He signed ya, Bill: Now you're a Law!"). Although the video does an admirable job depicting some of the checks and balances contained in the US Constitution, through which the members of both houses of the legislature must agree to send the bill forward to the executive branch for final approval before any proposed bill is signed into law, it does tend to convey the impression that any "good idea" can be transformed into "a Law" through the magical process of being debated by important-looking men in impressive-looking buildings with lots of steps and Greek columns, on top of high hills (and filled with long rows of impassive US Marines in dress blue uniforms, and statues of distinguished statesmen from previous generations), signed by the president using a fountain pen, and affixed with a shiny-looking seal with a ribbon. Nineteenth-century abolitionist, legal scholar and philosopher Lysander Spooner (1808 - 1887) would vehemently disagree that something becomes "a law" just because it goes through the above process and receives a president's signature and a fancy stamp. In fact, he published a treatise in 1850 entitled A Defence for Fugitive Slaves against the Acts of Congress of February 12, 1793 and September 18, 1850, in which he argued that an illegal law is no law at all, and confers no obligation on anyone to obey it, nor any authority to anyone desiring to enforce it. He begins his treatise with the complete copy of each of the two acts in question, both of which were considered "law" in 1850, compelling men or women who knew of a "fugitive slave" to help catch that "fugitive slave" or face penalties including fines and imprisonment (the term "slave" is put in quotation marks here because Spooner argues that no person can ever own another person, and that there actually is no such thing as a legal slave or the legal condition of slavery, all so-called "laws" which make one person the property of another being illegal and criminal). Those two so-called laws (the Fugitive Slave Act of 1793 and the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850) were both signed by the presidents of their day, George Washington in the first instance and Millard Fillmore in the second (they also bear the signatures of the respective Speakers of the House and Presidents of the Senate). But these signatures do not make them true laws, according to Spooner's arguments. Spooner demonstrates that holding anyone else as property is a crime, and that putting something on paper, stamping it with fancy seals, embellishing it with fancy legal language, and endorsing it with the signatures of people bearing impressive titles does not make it into law: it's still just a "sad little scrap of paper" in his eyes. He even goes so far as to say that men and women have the right to resist illegal laws, in what is undoubtedly among the most important sections of his argument, found on pages 27 and 28. There, he powerfully dismantles the counter-arguments that he anticipates from those who would argue that once something is "a law," it must be obeyed until it is repealed. If it were really true that an illegal or unconstitutional law must be obeyed until repealed, he reasons, then "there would therefore be no difference at all between a constitutional and an unconstitutional law, in respect to their binding force; and that would be equivalent to abolishing the constitution, and giving to the government unlimited power" (28). Those who would disagree with Lysander Spooner on this point are invited to participate in a mental experiment, in which they imagine that the president has signed a law saying that if you in any way hinder the search for an escaped slave, or in any way assist a person who has been designated a "slave" and who has run away and is hiding from the authorities, then you yourself are a criminal and can be subject to enormous fines and imprisonment. Note that this is not just a hypothetical scenario: the first and the thirteenth presidents of the United States each signed such a proposition into "law." Today, nobody reading this blog would likely argue that they would feel a moral duty to obey such a "law," or that they would have to actually support it until such time as they could eventually get it repealed through the same arduous process depicted in the Schoolhouse Rock video shown above. Nearly every man or woman would agree with Spooner that the institution of slavery and "laws" enforcing one person's ability to "own" another are not laws but rather outrageous crimes, and would reject the notion that writing such a "law" down on a piece of paper, stamping it with a pretty seal and adding some flowery signatures suddenly turns it into something that must be willingly and voluntarily obeyed until it can be debated and eventually repealed. Writing something on a piece of paper does not make it a law. But, if this is true, then what does make something a law? Lysander Spooner argued that the actions of men and women cannot actually make anything a law, but that there is already an immutable or unchangeable universal law which he called "Natural Law" or the "Science of Justice." He believed that human society should only enforce natural law, and not dream up additional or "artificial" laws, and that trying to add to or subtract from the natural law is as foolish as trying to add to or subtract from other natural laws, such as the law of gravity. He argued that men and women could voluntarily band together to help ensure compliance with this natural law among their group, but that they could not compel others to join that voluntary association. Even within such a voluntary association, he believed that people or groups could only rightly compel compliance with the natural law, which was generally extremely simple and basically entailed the command to "live honestly, hurt no one, and give everyone his or her due." In an 1882 publication entitled Natural Law; or The Science of Justice, Spooner set out to explain the concept of natural law. In it, he made a distinction between those things that everyone has a legal duty to either do or to refrain from doing, and which others can and must compel in others, and those things which everyone has a moral duty to do but which must be left up to each person's own judgment and which no one has the right or duty to compel. Below is a table based upon Spooner's 1882 text, generally following the order and wording of his argument: The left column (labeled "Legal Duty" and highlighted in yellow), in Spooner's view, constitutes those things which are part of the natural law, and can actually be the only things which anyone can rightfully use force to uphold. He says that everyone has a duty to refrain from injuring others, and that force may and must be used when someone sees someone else in the act of injuring someone else. Spooner further argues in that 1882 text that nearly everyone understands these natural law prohibitions and duties before they are even old enough to know that "three and three are six, or five and five ten" (9). The right column (labeled "Moral Duty" and highlighted in green), in Spooner's view, constitutes those things which we do have a moral duty to perform, but which no one else can compel us to do: we must judge the extent to which we are able to do those things, and how we wish to best accomplish them when we do decide to do them. Thus, in Spooner's view, any so-called law that goes beyond the legal duties in the left column (or, worse yet, directly contradicts and violates those legal duties, as did the Fugitive Slave Acts) is actually no law at all and it can and must be disobeyed as illegal and criminal, regardless of whether it was written down on paper using legal-sounding language and passed by men and women in fancy buildings and stamped with fancy stamps and inscribed with fancy signatures. At this point, the reader may be thinking that all of this is very nice, but what on earth does it have to do with the general subject matter covered in this blog? The answer is: everything. Because, as insightful thinkers such as Mark Passio have articulated, violations of natural law are so contrary to our innate understanding of right and wrong (remember that Spooner says we know it before we even know that 3 + 3 = 6) that artificial laws which violate natural law must always be dressed up with various symbols and word-formulas designed to convey legitimacy, and reinforced by systems of mind control by which men and women who should know that those violations are immoral can somehow be made to believe that those violations of natural law are instead right and good and deserving of support. Institutionalized violations of natural law are nearly always accompanied by powerful forms of illusion, or the creation of "false realities" that enable those violations to appear legitimate, and to get people to go along with them. Therefore, seeing through these false realities is of absolutely primary importance. This blog primarily examines false realities which can be seen operating all around us, including in the realm of conventional history as taught in all the institutions of academia and reinforced by the organs of the conventional media (see for example "Piercing the fog of deception that hides the contours of history" and also the two short videos entitled "The importance of challenging false narratives"). These false realities or false narratives which cause people to accept gross violations of natural law are operating today with just as much force as they were operating in Spooner's day -- perhaps even more so. False narratives assist in getting people to accept the premise that so-called "laws" permitting government surveillance of individual men and women at virtually any time and place are legitimate (see here and here). This is a violation of natural law in that it enables hidden enforcers and observers to treat individuals as criminals on the suspicion that they might do something to harm others, elevating some to the status of "prison guards" and demoting everyone else to the status of prisoners under constant suspicion and surveillance. False narratives convince people to accept the idea that men and women can and should be locked up and denied their freedom for possessing certain plants or mushrooms known to induce a state of ecstasy. This is a violation of natural law in that it uses force to prohibit behavior that in no way harms the person or property of another or infringes on another's rights. False narratives convince people to accept the idea that men and women representing the government and wearing military gear and driving military vehicles can point military weapons at people assembling in the streets to express themselves, or at people in their homes in a neighborhood where fugitives are supposedly hiding. These are clear violations of natural law in that such actions basically declare that force can be used against citizens whenever it is convenient for the government to say there is a need to do so, an idea which Spooner eloquently demolishes in pages 27 and 28 of his text against the Fugitive Slave Acts. In a passage labeled "Section IV" of his 1882 treatise on Natural Law, Spooner declares that the rights belonging to every human being by the unchangeable principle of justice "necessarily remain with him [or her] during life," and although these rights are "capable of being trampled upon" they are nevertheless "incapable of being blotted out, extinguished, annihilated, or separated from" each and every human being, and that there is no authority high enough to simply declare them null or void. False narratives have even apparently convinced some people that it is somehow excusable to cover up evidence of the potentially harmful effects of vaccines on certain children in order to support "herd immunity." All of the above examples, along with the many other violations of natural law currently taking place, are enabled and excused by a variety of false realities or false narratives, created and maintained in order to lend an air of legitimacy to these violations. So were many other horrendous violations of natural law which were enabled by false narratives and illusions throughout history, including the enslavement of Africans which Spooner argued against in the 1850s, to the destruction of Native American tribes in the western US after the end of the US Civil War and the seizure of their lands and their confinement to reservations or "agencies," to the seizure of the Hawaiian Islands and the Philippines in the years after that, and on and on right up to the present. All of the above examples were enabled by lies, illusions, and false narratives or false realities. For more on breaking through illusions and false realities, and creating new realities, see for example this previous post entitled "Jon Rappoport's talk on the trickster-god and creating reality." It is one of Lysander Spooner's singular contributions that he perceived and forcefully argued that a criminal "law" is no law at all, and that men and women have the right and the duty to treat it as such, and to inform others of their right to do the same. Putting something on paper doesn't make it a "law" -- even if it has been adorned with all the necessary stamps and signatures. As Spooner alludes in the writings linked above, the US Constitution as originally designed, and especially the Bill of Rights as originally conceived, were designed to safeguard natural-law rights in many ways, and to the extent that Schoolhouse Rock taught those principles to a new generation in the 1970s, it can be commended. Perhaps Spooner's arguments about an illegal law being no law at all could not really be expected to be squeezed into the "I'm Just a Bill" song. But Lysander Spooner's arguments deserve to be brought into the modern era, in much the same way that the creators of Schoolhouse Rock tried to speak to the younger generation of the 1970s using the language and imagery of the 1970s. Spooner's arguments on behalf of the individual's rights under natural law -- rights which could never be abridged by any authority -- and his arguments against the creation of arbitrary "laws" which everyone has to obey just because a legislature or a president gave them the title of a "law" deserve examination, consideration, and thoughtful debate today more than ever. And the false narratives supporting so-called laws which supposedly authorize some people to use violence against others, or to threaten violence against others, or to take away the freedom of others when those others have not done anything to harm anyone else's persons or property, must be shown to be the form of mind control that they are. No individuals or groups can give themselves the right to violate natural law and in doing so to infringe on anyone else's rights, simply by writing something down on a "sad little scrap of paper."

<urn:uuid:17474726-e53e-48c9-a980-028439f26526>

CC-MAIN-2018-13

http://www.starmythworld.com/mathisencorollary/2014/09/does-writing-something-on-piece-of.html

s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2018-13/segments/1521257647892.89/warc/CC-MAIN-20180322151300-20180322171300-00710.warc.gz

en

<urn:uuid:17474726-e53e-48c9-a980-028439f26526>_37

This blog primarily examines false realities which can be seen operating all around us, including in the realm of conventional history as taught in all the institutions of academia and reinforced by the organs of the conventional media (see for example "Piercing the fog of deception that hides the contours of history" and also the two short videos entitled "The importance of challenging false narratives").

"Whew! You sure gotta climb a lot of steps to get to the Capitol Building here in Washington. Well I wonder who that sad little scrap of paper is?" And with those words began one of my childhood favorite Schoolhouse Rock videos, which used to be on television back in the early 1970s when I wasn't really old enough to have any idea what exactly they were all about, or why they would sometimes show up in between episodes of Superfriends, Speed Racer, or Sigmund and the Sea Monsters. In I'm just a bill," we witness the progress by which "that sad little scrap of paper" receives a fancy seal and a president's signature and becomes a law ("He signed ya, Bill: Now you're a Law!"). Although the video does an admirable job depicting some of the checks and balances contained in the US Constitution, through which the members of both houses of the legislature must agree to send the bill forward to the executive branch for final approval before any proposed bill is signed into law, it does tend to convey the impression that any "good idea" can be transformed into "a Law" through the magical process of being debated by important-looking men in impressive-looking buildings with lots of steps and Greek columns, on top of high hills (and filled with long rows of impassive US Marines in dress blue uniforms, and statues of distinguished statesmen from previous generations), signed by the president using a fountain pen, and affixed with a shiny-looking seal with a ribbon. Nineteenth-century abolitionist, legal scholar and philosopher Lysander Spooner (1808 - 1887) would vehemently disagree that something becomes "a law" just because it goes through the above process and receives a president's signature and a fancy stamp. In fact, he published a treatise in 1850 entitled A Defence for Fugitive Slaves against the Acts of Congress of February 12, 1793 and September 18, 1850, in which he argued that an illegal law is no law at all, and confers no obligation on anyone to obey it, nor any authority to anyone desiring to enforce it. He begins his treatise with the complete copy of each of the two acts in question, both of which were considered "law" in 1850, compelling men or women who knew of a "fugitive slave" to help catch that "fugitive slave" or face penalties including fines and imprisonment (the term "slave" is put in quotation marks here because Spooner argues that no person can ever own another person, and that there actually is no such thing as a legal slave or the legal condition of slavery, all so-called "laws" which make one person the property of another being illegal and criminal). Those two so-called laws (the Fugitive Slave Act of 1793 and the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850) were both signed by the presidents of their day, George Washington in the first instance and Millard Fillmore in the second (they also bear the signatures of the respective Speakers of the House and Presidents of the Senate). But these signatures do not make them true laws, according to Spooner's arguments. Spooner demonstrates that holding anyone else as property is a crime, and that putting something on paper, stamping it with fancy seals, embellishing it with fancy legal language, and endorsing it with the signatures of people bearing impressive titles does not make it into law: it's still just a "sad little scrap of paper" in his eyes. He even goes so far as to say that men and women have the right to resist illegal laws, in what is undoubtedly among the most important sections of his argument, found on pages 27 and 28. There, he powerfully dismantles the counter-arguments that he anticipates from those who would argue that once something is "a law," it must be obeyed until it is repealed. If it were really true that an illegal or unconstitutional law must be obeyed until repealed, he reasons, then "there would therefore be no difference at all between a constitutional and an unconstitutional law, in respect to their binding force; and that would be equivalent to abolishing the constitution, and giving to the government unlimited power" (28). Those who would disagree with Lysander Spooner on this point are invited to participate in a mental experiment, in which they imagine that the president has signed a law saying that if you in any way hinder the search for an escaped slave, or in any way assist a person who has been designated a "slave" and who has run away and is hiding from the authorities, then you yourself are a criminal and can be subject to enormous fines and imprisonment. Note that this is not just a hypothetical scenario: the first and the thirteenth presidents of the United States each signed such a proposition into "law." Today, nobody reading this blog would likely argue that they would feel a moral duty to obey such a "law," or that they would have to actually support it until such time as they could eventually get it repealed through the same arduous process depicted in the Schoolhouse Rock video shown above. Nearly every man or woman would agree with Spooner that the institution of slavery and "laws" enforcing one person's ability to "own" another are not laws but rather outrageous crimes, and would reject the notion that writing such a "law" down on a piece of paper, stamping it with a pretty seal and adding some flowery signatures suddenly turns it into something that must be willingly and voluntarily obeyed until it can be debated and eventually repealed. Writing something on a piece of paper does not make it a law. But, if this is true, then what does make something a law? Lysander Spooner argued that the actions of men and women cannot actually make anything a law, but that there is already an immutable or unchangeable universal law which he called "Natural Law" or the "Science of Justice." He believed that human society should only enforce natural law, and not dream up additional or "artificial" laws, and that trying to add to or subtract from the natural law is as foolish as trying to add to or subtract from other natural laws, such as the law of gravity. He argued that men and women could voluntarily band together to help ensure compliance with this natural law among their group, but that they could not compel others to join that voluntary association. Even within such a voluntary association, he believed that people or groups could only rightly compel compliance with the natural law, which was generally extremely simple and basically entailed the command to "live honestly, hurt no one, and give everyone his or her due." In an 1882 publication entitled Natural Law; or The Science of Justice, Spooner set out to explain the concept of natural law. In it, he made a distinction between those things that everyone has a legal duty to either do or to refrain from doing, and which others can and must compel in others, and those things which everyone has a moral duty to do but which must be left up to each person's own judgment and which no one has the right or duty to compel. Below is a table based upon Spooner's 1882 text, generally following the order and wording of his argument: The left column (labeled "Legal Duty" and highlighted in yellow), in Spooner's view, constitutes those things which are part of the natural law, and can actually be the only things which anyone can rightfully use force to uphold. He says that everyone has a duty to refrain from injuring others, and that force may and must be used when someone sees someone else in the act of injuring someone else. Spooner further argues in that 1882 text that nearly everyone understands these natural law prohibitions and duties before they are even old enough to know that "three and three are six, or five and five ten" (9). The right column (labeled "Moral Duty" and highlighted in green), in Spooner's view, constitutes those things which we do have a moral duty to perform, but which no one else can compel us to do: we must judge the extent to which we are able to do those things, and how we wish to best accomplish them when we do decide to do them. Thus, in Spooner's view, any so-called law that goes beyond the legal duties in the left column (or, worse yet, directly contradicts and violates those legal duties, as did the Fugitive Slave Acts) is actually no law at all and it can and must be disobeyed as illegal and criminal, regardless of whether it was written down on paper using legal-sounding language and passed by men and women in fancy buildings and stamped with fancy stamps and inscribed with fancy signatures. At this point, the reader may be thinking that all of this is very nice, but what on earth does it have to do with the general subject matter covered in this blog? The answer is: everything. Because, as insightful thinkers such as Mark Passio have articulated, violations of natural law are so contrary to our innate understanding of right and wrong (remember that Spooner says we know it before we even know that 3 + 3 = 6) that artificial laws which violate natural law must always be dressed up with various symbols and word-formulas designed to convey legitimacy, and reinforced by systems of mind control by which men and women who should know that those violations are immoral can somehow be made to believe that those violations of natural law are instead right and good and deserving of support. Institutionalized violations of natural law are nearly always accompanied by powerful forms of illusion, or the creation of "false realities" that enable those violations to appear legitimate, and to get people to go along with them. Therefore, seeing through these false realities is of absolutely primary importance. This blog primarily examines false realities which can be seen operating all around us, including in the realm of conventional history as taught in all the institutions of academia and reinforced by the organs of the conventional media (see for example "Piercing the fog of deception that hides the contours of history" and also the two short videos entitled "The importance of challenging false narratives"). These false realities or false narratives which cause people to accept gross violations of natural law are operating today with just as much force as they were operating in Spooner's day -- perhaps even more so. False narratives assist in getting people to accept the premise that so-called "laws" permitting government surveillance of individual men and women at virtually any time and place are legitimate (see here and here). This is a violation of natural law in that it enables hidden enforcers and observers to treat individuals as criminals on the suspicion that they might do something to harm others, elevating some to the status of "prison guards" and demoting everyone else to the status of prisoners under constant suspicion and surveillance. False narratives convince people to accept the idea that men and women can and should be locked up and denied their freedom for possessing certain plants or mushrooms known to induce a state of ecstasy. This is a violation of natural law in that it uses force to prohibit behavior that in no way harms the person or property of another or infringes on another's rights. False narratives convince people to accept the idea that men and women representing the government and wearing military gear and driving military vehicles can point military weapons at people assembling in the streets to express themselves, or at people in their homes in a neighborhood where fugitives are supposedly hiding. These are clear violations of natural law in that such actions basically declare that force can be used against citizens whenever it is convenient for the government to say there is a need to do so, an idea which Spooner eloquently demolishes in pages 27 and 28 of his text against the Fugitive Slave Acts. In a passage labeled "Section IV" of his 1882 treatise on Natural Law, Spooner declares that the rights belonging to every human being by the unchangeable principle of justice "necessarily remain with him [or her] during life," and although these rights are "capable of being trampled upon" they are nevertheless "incapable of being blotted out, extinguished, annihilated, or separated from" each and every human being, and that there is no authority high enough to simply declare them null or void. False narratives have even apparently convinced some people that it is somehow excusable to cover up evidence of the potentially harmful effects of vaccines on certain children in order to support "herd immunity." All of the above examples, along with the many other violations of natural law currently taking place, are enabled and excused by a variety of false realities or false narratives, created and maintained in order to lend an air of legitimacy to these violations. So were many other horrendous violations of natural law which were enabled by false narratives and illusions throughout history, including the enslavement of Africans which Spooner argued against in the 1850s, to the destruction of Native American tribes in the western US after the end of the US Civil War and the seizure of their lands and their confinement to reservations or "agencies," to the seizure of the Hawaiian Islands and the Philippines in the years after that, and on and on right up to the present. All of the above examples were enabled by lies, illusions, and false narratives or false realities. For more on breaking through illusions and false realities, and creating new realities, see for example this previous post entitled "Jon Rappoport's talk on the trickster-god and creating reality." It is one of Lysander Spooner's singular contributions that he perceived and forcefully argued that a criminal "law" is no law at all, and that men and women have the right and the duty to treat it as such, and to inform others of their right to do the same. Putting something on paper doesn't make it a "law" -- even if it has been adorned with all the necessary stamps and signatures. As Spooner alludes in the writings linked above, the US Constitution as originally designed, and especially the Bill of Rights as originally conceived, were designed to safeguard natural-law rights in many ways, and to the extent that Schoolhouse Rock taught those principles to a new generation in the 1970s, it can be commended. Perhaps Spooner's arguments about an illegal law being no law at all could not really be expected to be squeezed into the "I'm Just a Bill" song. But Lysander Spooner's arguments deserve to be brought into the modern era, in much the same way that the creators of Schoolhouse Rock tried to speak to the younger generation of the 1970s using the language and imagery of the 1970s. Spooner's arguments on behalf of the individual's rights under natural law -- rights which could never be abridged by any authority -- and his arguments against the creation of arbitrary "laws" which everyone has to obey just because a legislature or a president gave them the title of a "law" deserve examination, consideration, and thoughtful debate today more than ever. And the false narratives supporting so-called laws which supposedly authorize some people to use violence against others, or to threaten violence against others, or to take away the freedom of others when those others have not done anything to harm anyone else's persons or property, must be shown to be the form of mind control that they are. No individuals or groups can give themselves the right to violate natural law and in doing so to infringe on anyone else's rights, simply by writing something down on a "sad little scrap of paper."

<urn:uuid:17474726-e53e-48c9-a980-028439f26526>

CC-MAIN-2018-13

http://www.starmythworld.com/mathisencorollary/2014/09/does-writing-something-on-piece-of.html

s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2018-13/segments/1521257647892.89/warc/CC-MAIN-20180322151300-20180322171300-00710.warc.gz

en

<urn:uuid:17474726-e53e-48c9-a980-028439f26526>_38

These false realities or false narratives which cause people to accept gross violations of natural law are operating today with just as much force as they were operating in Spooner's day -- perhaps even more so.

"Whew! You sure gotta climb a lot of steps to get to the Capitol Building here in Washington. Well I wonder who that sad little scrap of paper is?" And with those words began one of my childhood favorite Schoolhouse Rock videos, which used to be on television back in the early 1970s when I wasn't really old enough to have any idea what exactly they were all about, or why they would sometimes show up in between episodes of Superfriends, Speed Racer, or Sigmund and the Sea Monsters. In I'm just a bill," we witness the progress by which "that sad little scrap of paper" receives a fancy seal and a president's signature and becomes a law ("He signed ya, Bill: Now you're a Law!"). Although the video does an admirable job depicting some of the checks and balances contained in the US Constitution, through which the members of both houses of the legislature must agree to send the bill forward to the executive branch for final approval before any proposed bill is signed into law, it does tend to convey the impression that any "good idea" can be transformed into "a Law" through the magical process of being debated by important-looking men in impressive-looking buildings with lots of steps and Greek columns, on top of high hills (and filled with long rows of impassive US Marines in dress blue uniforms, and statues of distinguished statesmen from previous generations), signed by the president using a fountain pen, and affixed with a shiny-looking seal with a ribbon. Nineteenth-century abolitionist, legal scholar and philosopher Lysander Spooner (1808 - 1887) would vehemently disagree that something becomes "a law" just because it goes through the above process and receives a president's signature and a fancy stamp. In fact, he published a treatise in 1850 entitled A Defence for Fugitive Slaves against the Acts of Congress of February 12, 1793 and September 18, 1850, in which he argued that an illegal law is no law at all, and confers no obligation on anyone to obey it, nor any authority to anyone desiring to enforce it. He begins his treatise with the complete copy of each of the two acts in question, both of which were considered "law" in 1850, compelling men or women who knew of a "fugitive slave" to help catch that "fugitive slave" or face penalties including fines and imprisonment (the term "slave" is put in quotation marks here because Spooner argues that no person can ever own another person, and that there actually is no such thing as a legal slave or the legal condition of slavery, all so-called "laws" which make one person the property of another being illegal and criminal). Those two so-called laws (the Fugitive Slave Act of 1793 and the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850) were both signed by the presidents of their day, George Washington in the first instance and Millard Fillmore in the second (they also bear the signatures of the respective Speakers of the House and Presidents of the Senate). But these signatures do not make them true laws, according to Spooner's arguments. Spooner demonstrates that holding anyone else as property is a crime, and that putting something on paper, stamping it with fancy seals, embellishing it with fancy legal language, and endorsing it with the signatures of people bearing impressive titles does not make it into law: it's still just a "sad little scrap of paper" in his eyes. He even goes so far as to say that men and women have the right to resist illegal laws, in what is undoubtedly among the most important sections of his argument, found on pages 27 and 28. There, he powerfully dismantles the counter-arguments that he anticipates from those who would argue that once something is "a law," it must be obeyed until it is repealed. If it were really true that an illegal or unconstitutional law must be obeyed until repealed, he reasons, then "there would therefore be no difference at all between a constitutional and an unconstitutional law, in respect to their binding force; and that would be equivalent to abolishing the constitution, and giving to the government unlimited power" (28). Those who would disagree with Lysander Spooner on this point are invited to participate in a mental experiment, in which they imagine that the president has signed a law saying that if you in any way hinder the search for an escaped slave, or in any way assist a person who has been designated a "slave" and who has run away and is hiding from the authorities, then you yourself are a criminal and can be subject to enormous fines and imprisonment. Note that this is not just a hypothetical scenario: the first and the thirteenth presidents of the United States each signed such a proposition into "law." Today, nobody reading this blog would likely argue that they would feel a moral duty to obey such a "law," or that they would have to actually support it until such time as they could eventually get it repealed through the same arduous process depicted in the Schoolhouse Rock video shown above. Nearly every man or woman would agree with Spooner that the institution of slavery and "laws" enforcing one person's ability to "own" another are not laws but rather outrageous crimes, and would reject the notion that writing such a "law" down on a piece of paper, stamping it with a pretty seal and adding some flowery signatures suddenly turns it into something that must be willingly and voluntarily obeyed until it can be debated and eventually repealed. Writing something on a piece of paper does not make it a law. But, if this is true, then what does make something a law? Lysander Spooner argued that the actions of men and women cannot actually make anything a law, but that there is already an immutable or unchangeable universal law which he called "Natural Law" or the "Science of Justice." He believed that human society should only enforce natural law, and not dream up additional or "artificial" laws, and that trying to add to or subtract from the natural law is as foolish as trying to add to or subtract from other natural laws, such as the law of gravity. He argued that men and women could voluntarily band together to help ensure compliance with this natural law among their group, but that they could not compel others to join that voluntary association. Even within such a voluntary association, he believed that people or groups could only rightly compel compliance with the natural law, which was generally extremely simple and basically entailed the command to "live honestly, hurt no one, and give everyone his or her due." In an 1882 publication entitled Natural Law; or The Science of Justice, Spooner set out to explain the concept of natural law. In it, he made a distinction between those things that everyone has a legal duty to either do or to refrain from doing, and which others can and must compel in others, and those things which everyone has a moral duty to do but which must be left up to each person's own judgment and which no one has the right or duty to compel. Below is a table based upon Spooner's 1882 text, generally following the order and wording of his argument: The left column (labeled "Legal Duty" and highlighted in yellow), in Spooner's view, constitutes those things which are part of the natural law, and can actually be the only things which anyone can rightfully use force to uphold. He says that everyone has a duty to refrain from injuring others, and that force may and must be used when someone sees someone else in the act of injuring someone else. Spooner further argues in that 1882 text that nearly everyone understands these natural law prohibitions and duties before they are even old enough to know that "three and three are six, or five and five ten" (9). The right column (labeled "Moral Duty" and highlighted in green), in Spooner's view, constitutes those things which we do have a moral duty to perform, but which no one else can compel us to do: we must judge the extent to which we are able to do those things, and how we wish to best accomplish them when we do decide to do them. Thus, in Spooner's view, any so-called law that goes beyond the legal duties in the left column (or, worse yet, directly contradicts and violates those legal duties, as did the Fugitive Slave Acts) is actually no law at all and it can and must be disobeyed as illegal and criminal, regardless of whether it was written down on paper using legal-sounding language and passed by men and women in fancy buildings and stamped with fancy stamps and inscribed with fancy signatures. At this point, the reader may be thinking that all of this is very nice, but what on earth does it have to do with the general subject matter covered in this blog? The answer is: everything. Because, as insightful thinkers such as Mark Passio have articulated, violations of natural law are so contrary to our innate understanding of right and wrong (remember that Spooner says we know it before we even know that 3 + 3 = 6) that artificial laws which violate natural law must always be dressed up with various symbols and word-formulas designed to convey legitimacy, and reinforced by systems of mind control by which men and women who should know that those violations are immoral can somehow be made to believe that those violations of natural law are instead right and good and deserving of support. Institutionalized violations of natural law are nearly always accompanied by powerful forms of illusion, or the creation of "false realities" that enable those violations to appear legitimate, and to get people to go along with them. Therefore, seeing through these false realities is of absolutely primary importance. This blog primarily examines false realities which can be seen operating all around us, including in the realm of conventional history as taught in all the institutions of academia and reinforced by the organs of the conventional media (see for example "Piercing the fog of deception that hides the contours of history" and also the two short videos entitled "The importance of challenging false narratives"). These false realities or false narratives which cause people to accept gross violations of natural law are operating today with just as much force as they were operating in Spooner's day -- perhaps even more so. False narratives assist in getting people to accept the premise that so-called "laws" permitting government surveillance of individual men and women at virtually any time and place are legitimate (see here and here). This is a violation of natural law in that it enables hidden enforcers and observers to treat individuals as criminals on the suspicion that they might do something to harm others, elevating some to the status of "prison guards" and demoting everyone else to the status of prisoners under constant suspicion and surveillance. False narratives convince people to accept the idea that men and women can and should be locked up and denied their freedom for possessing certain plants or mushrooms known to induce a state of ecstasy. This is a violation of natural law in that it uses force to prohibit behavior that in no way harms the person or property of another or infringes on another's rights. False narratives convince people to accept the idea that men and women representing the government and wearing military gear and driving military vehicles can point military weapons at people assembling in the streets to express themselves, or at people in their homes in a neighborhood where fugitives are supposedly hiding. These are clear violations of natural law in that such actions basically declare that force can be used against citizens whenever it is convenient for the government to say there is a need to do so, an idea which Spooner eloquently demolishes in pages 27 and 28 of his text against the Fugitive Slave Acts. In a passage labeled "Section IV" of his 1882 treatise on Natural Law, Spooner declares that the rights belonging to every human being by the unchangeable principle of justice "necessarily remain with him [or her] during life," and although these rights are "capable of being trampled upon" they are nevertheless "incapable of being blotted out, extinguished, annihilated, or separated from" each and every human being, and that there is no authority high enough to simply declare them null or void. False narratives have even apparently convinced some people that it is somehow excusable to cover up evidence of the potentially harmful effects of vaccines on certain children in order to support "herd immunity." All of the above examples, along with the many other violations of natural law currently taking place, are enabled and excused by a variety of false realities or false narratives, created and maintained in order to lend an air of legitimacy to these violations. So were many other horrendous violations of natural law which were enabled by false narratives and illusions throughout history, including the enslavement of Africans which Spooner argued against in the 1850s, to the destruction of Native American tribes in the western US after the end of the US Civil War and the seizure of their lands and their confinement to reservations or "agencies," to the seizure of the Hawaiian Islands and the Philippines in the years after that, and on and on right up to the present. All of the above examples were enabled by lies, illusions, and false narratives or false realities. For more on breaking through illusions and false realities, and creating new realities, see for example this previous post entitled "Jon Rappoport's talk on the trickster-god and creating reality." It is one of Lysander Spooner's singular contributions that he perceived and forcefully argued that a criminal "law" is no law at all, and that men and women have the right and the duty to treat it as such, and to inform others of their right to do the same. Putting something on paper doesn't make it a "law" -- even if it has been adorned with all the necessary stamps and signatures. As Spooner alludes in the writings linked above, the US Constitution as originally designed, and especially the Bill of Rights as originally conceived, were designed to safeguard natural-law rights in many ways, and to the extent that Schoolhouse Rock taught those principles to a new generation in the 1970s, it can be commended. Perhaps Spooner's arguments about an illegal law being no law at all could not really be expected to be squeezed into the "I'm Just a Bill" song. But Lysander Spooner's arguments deserve to be brought into the modern era, in much the same way that the creators of Schoolhouse Rock tried to speak to the younger generation of the 1970s using the language and imagery of the 1970s. Spooner's arguments on behalf of the individual's rights under natural law -- rights which could never be abridged by any authority -- and his arguments against the creation of arbitrary "laws" which everyone has to obey just because a legislature or a president gave them the title of a "law" deserve examination, consideration, and thoughtful debate today more than ever. And the false narratives supporting so-called laws which supposedly authorize some people to use violence against others, or to threaten violence against others, or to take away the freedom of others when those others have not done anything to harm anyone else's persons or property, must be shown to be the form of mind control that they are. No individuals or groups can give themselves the right to violate natural law and in doing so to infringe on anyone else's rights, simply by writing something down on a "sad little scrap of paper."

<urn:uuid:17474726-e53e-48c9-a980-028439f26526>

CC-MAIN-2018-13

http://www.starmythworld.com/mathisencorollary/2014/09/does-writing-something-on-piece-of.html

s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2018-13/segments/1521257647892.89/warc/CC-MAIN-20180322151300-20180322171300-00710.warc.gz

en

<urn:uuid:17474726-e53e-48c9-a980-028439f26526>_39

False narratives assist in getting people to accept the premise that so-called "laws" permitting government surveillance of individual men and women at virtually any time and place are legitimate (see here and here).

"Whew! You sure gotta climb a lot of steps to get to the Capitol Building here in Washington. Well I wonder who that sad little scrap of paper is?" And with those words began one of my childhood favorite Schoolhouse Rock videos, which used to be on television back in the early 1970s when I wasn't really old enough to have any idea what exactly they were all about, or why they would sometimes show up in between episodes of Superfriends, Speed Racer, or Sigmund and the Sea Monsters. In I'm just a bill," we witness the progress by which "that sad little scrap of paper" receives a fancy seal and a president's signature and becomes a law ("He signed ya, Bill: Now you're a Law!"). Although the video does an admirable job depicting some of the checks and balances contained in the US Constitution, through which the members of both houses of the legislature must agree to send the bill forward to the executive branch for final approval before any proposed bill is signed into law, it does tend to convey the impression that any "good idea" can be transformed into "a Law" through the magical process of being debated by important-looking men in impressive-looking buildings with lots of steps and Greek columns, on top of high hills (and filled with long rows of impassive US Marines in dress blue uniforms, and statues of distinguished statesmen from previous generations), signed by the president using a fountain pen, and affixed with a shiny-looking seal with a ribbon. Nineteenth-century abolitionist, legal scholar and philosopher Lysander Spooner (1808 - 1887) would vehemently disagree that something becomes "a law" just because it goes through the above process and receives a president's signature and a fancy stamp. In fact, he published a treatise in 1850 entitled A Defence for Fugitive Slaves against the Acts of Congress of February 12, 1793 and September 18, 1850, in which he argued that an illegal law is no law at all, and confers no obligation on anyone to obey it, nor any authority to anyone desiring to enforce it. He begins his treatise with the complete copy of each of the two acts in question, both of which were considered "law" in 1850, compelling men or women who knew of a "fugitive slave" to help catch that "fugitive slave" or face penalties including fines and imprisonment (the term "slave" is put in quotation marks here because Spooner argues that no person can ever own another person, and that there actually is no such thing as a legal slave or the legal condition of slavery, all so-called "laws" which make one person the property of another being illegal and criminal). Those two so-called laws (the Fugitive Slave Act of 1793 and the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850) were both signed by the presidents of their day, George Washington in the first instance and Millard Fillmore in the second (they also bear the signatures of the respective Speakers of the House and Presidents of the Senate). But these signatures do not make them true laws, according to Spooner's arguments. Spooner demonstrates that holding anyone else as property is a crime, and that putting something on paper, stamping it with fancy seals, embellishing it with fancy legal language, and endorsing it with the signatures of people bearing impressive titles does not make it into law: it's still just a "sad little scrap of paper" in his eyes. He even goes so far as to say that men and women have the right to resist illegal laws, in what is undoubtedly among the most important sections of his argument, found on pages 27 and 28. There, he powerfully dismantles the counter-arguments that he anticipates from those who would argue that once something is "a law," it must be obeyed until it is repealed. If it were really true that an illegal or unconstitutional law must be obeyed until repealed, he reasons, then "there would therefore be no difference at all between a constitutional and an unconstitutional law, in respect to their binding force; and that would be equivalent to abolishing the constitution, and giving to the government unlimited power" (28). Those who would disagree with Lysander Spooner on this point are invited to participate in a mental experiment, in which they imagine that the president has signed a law saying that if you in any way hinder the search for an escaped slave, or in any way assist a person who has been designated a "slave" and who has run away and is hiding from the authorities, then you yourself are a criminal and can be subject to enormous fines and imprisonment. Note that this is not just a hypothetical scenario: the first and the thirteenth presidents of the United States each signed such a proposition into "law." Today, nobody reading this blog would likely argue that they would feel a moral duty to obey such a "law," or that they would have to actually support it until such time as they could eventually get it repealed through the same arduous process depicted in the Schoolhouse Rock video shown above. Nearly every man or woman would agree with Spooner that the institution of slavery and "laws" enforcing one person's ability to "own" another are not laws but rather outrageous crimes, and would reject the notion that writing such a "law" down on a piece of paper, stamping it with a pretty seal and adding some flowery signatures suddenly turns it into something that must be willingly and voluntarily obeyed until it can be debated and eventually repealed. Writing something on a piece of paper does not make it a law. But, if this is true, then what does make something a law? Lysander Spooner argued that the actions of men and women cannot actually make anything a law, but that there is already an immutable or unchangeable universal law which he called "Natural Law" or the "Science of Justice." He believed that human society should only enforce natural law, and not dream up additional or "artificial" laws, and that trying to add to or subtract from the natural law is as foolish as trying to add to or subtract from other natural laws, such as the law of gravity. He argued that men and women could voluntarily band together to help ensure compliance with this natural law among their group, but that they could not compel others to join that voluntary association. Even within such a voluntary association, he believed that people or groups could only rightly compel compliance with the natural law, which was generally extremely simple and basically entailed the command to "live honestly, hurt no one, and give everyone his or her due." In an 1882 publication entitled Natural Law; or The Science of Justice, Spooner set out to explain the concept of natural law. In it, he made a distinction between those things that everyone has a legal duty to either do or to refrain from doing, and which others can and must compel in others, and those things which everyone has a moral duty to do but which must be left up to each person's own judgment and which no one has the right or duty to compel. Below is a table based upon Spooner's 1882 text, generally following the order and wording of his argument: The left column (labeled "Legal Duty" and highlighted in yellow), in Spooner's view, constitutes those things which are part of the natural law, and can actually be the only things which anyone can rightfully use force to uphold. He says that everyone has a duty to refrain from injuring others, and that force may and must be used when someone sees someone else in the act of injuring someone else. Spooner further argues in that 1882 text that nearly everyone understands these natural law prohibitions and duties before they are even old enough to know that "three and three are six, or five and five ten" (9). The right column (labeled "Moral Duty" and highlighted in green), in Spooner's view, constitutes those things which we do have a moral duty to perform, but which no one else can compel us to do: we must judge the extent to which we are able to do those things, and how we wish to best accomplish them when we do decide to do them. Thus, in Spooner's view, any so-called law that goes beyond the legal duties in the left column (or, worse yet, directly contradicts and violates those legal duties, as did the Fugitive Slave Acts) is actually no law at all and it can and must be disobeyed as illegal and criminal, regardless of whether it was written down on paper using legal-sounding language and passed by men and women in fancy buildings and stamped with fancy stamps and inscribed with fancy signatures. At this point, the reader may be thinking that all of this is very nice, but what on earth does it have to do with the general subject matter covered in this blog? The answer is: everything. Because, as insightful thinkers such as Mark Passio have articulated, violations of natural law are so contrary to our innate understanding of right and wrong (remember that Spooner says we know it before we even know that 3 + 3 = 6) that artificial laws which violate natural law must always be dressed up with various symbols and word-formulas designed to convey legitimacy, and reinforced by systems of mind control by which men and women who should know that those violations are immoral can somehow be made to believe that those violations of natural law are instead right and good and deserving of support. Institutionalized violations of natural law are nearly always accompanied by powerful forms of illusion, or the creation of "false realities" that enable those violations to appear legitimate, and to get people to go along with them. Therefore, seeing through these false realities is of absolutely primary importance. This blog primarily examines false realities which can be seen operating all around us, including in the realm of conventional history as taught in all the institutions of academia and reinforced by the organs of the conventional media (see for example "Piercing the fog of deception that hides the contours of history" and also the two short videos entitled "The importance of challenging false narratives"). These false realities or false narratives which cause people to accept gross violations of natural law are operating today with just as much force as they were operating in Spooner's day -- perhaps even more so. False narratives assist in getting people to accept the premise that so-called "laws" permitting government surveillance of individual men and women at virtually any time and place are legitimate (see here and here). This is a violation of natural law in that it enables hidden enforcers and observers to treat individuals as criminals on the suspicion that they might do something to harm others, elevating some to the status of "prison guards" and demoting everyone else to the status of prisoners under constant suspicion and surveillance. False narratives convince people to accept the idea that men and women can and should be locked up and denied their freedom for possessing certain plants or mushrooms known to induce a state of ecstasy. This is a violation of natural law in that it uses force to prohibit behavior that in no way harms the person or property of another or infringes on another's rights. False narratives convince people to accept the idea that men and women representing the government and wearing military gear and driving military vehicles can point military weapons at people assembling in the streets to express themselves, or at people in their homes in a neighborhood where fugitives are supposedly hiding. These are clear violations of natural law in that such actions basically declare that force can be used against citizens whenever it is convenient for the government to say there is a need to do so, an idea which Spooner eloquently demolishes in pages 27 and 28 of his text against the Fugitive Slave Acts. In a passage labeled "Section IV" of his 1882 treatise on Natural Law, Spooner declares that the rights belonging to every human being by the unchangeable principle of justice "necessarily remain with him [or her] during life," and although these rights are "capable of being trampled upon" they are nevertheless "incapable of being blotted out, extinguished, annihilated, or separated from" each and every human being, and that there is no authority high enough to simply declare them null or void. False narratives have even apparently convinced some people that it is somehow excusable to cover up evidence of the potentially harmful effects of vaccines on certain children in order to support "herd immunity." All of the above examples, along with the many other violations of natural law currently taking place, are enabled and excused by a variety of false realities or false narratives, created and maintained in order to lend an air of legitimacy to these violations. So were many other horrendous violations of natural law which were enabled by false narratives and illusions throughout history, including the enslavement of Africans which Spooner argued against in the 1850s, to the destruction of Native American tribes in the western US after the end of the US Civil War and the seizure of their lands and their confinement to reservations or "agencies," to the seizure of the Hawaiian Islands and the Philippines in the years after that, and on and on right up to the present. All of the above examples were enabled by lies, illusions, and false narratives or false realities. For more on breaking through illusions and false realities, and creating new realities, see for example this previous post entitled "Jon Rappoport's talk on the trickster-god and creating reality." It is one of Lysander Spooner's singular contributions that he perceived and forcefully argued that a criminal "law" is no law at all, and that men and women have the right and the duty to treat it as such, and to inform others of their right to do the same. Putting something on paper doesn't make it a "law" -- even if it has been adorned with all the necessary stamps and signatures. As Spooner alludes in the writings linked above, the US Constitution as originally designed, and especially the Bill of Rights as originally conceived, were designed to safeguard natural-law rights in many ways, and to the extent that Schoolhouse Rock taught those principles to a new generation in the 1970s, it can be commended. Perhaps Spooner's arguments about an illegal law being no law at all could not really be expected to be squeezed into the "I'm Just a Bill" song. But Lysander Spooner's arguments deserve to be brought into the modern era, in much the same way that the creators of Schoolhouse Rock tried to speak to the younger generation of the 1970s using the language and imagery of the 1970s. Spooner's arguments on behalf of the individual's rights under natural law -- rights which could never be abridged by any authority -- and his arguments against the creation of arbitrary "laws" which everyone has to obey just because a legislature or a president gave them the title of a "law" deserve examination, consideration, and thoughtful debate today more than ever. And the false narratives supporting so-called laws which supposedly authorize some people to use violence against others, or to threaten violence against others, or to take away the freedom of others when those others have not done anything to harm anyone else's persons or property, must be shown to be the form of mind control that they are. No individuals or groups can give themselves the right to violate natural law and in doing so to infringe on anyone else's rights, simply by writing something down on a "sad little scrap of paper."

<urn:uuid:17474726-e53e-48c9-a980-028439f26526>

CC-MAIN-2018-13

http://www.starmythworld.com/mathisencorollary/2014/09/does-writing-something-on-piece-of.html

s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2018-13/segments/1521257647892.89/warc/CC-MAIN-20180322151300-20180322171300-00710.warc.gz

en

<urn:uuid:17474726-e53e-48c9-a980-028439f26526>_40

This is a violation of natural law in that it enables hidden enforcers and observers to treat individuals as criminals on the suspicion that they might do something to harm others, elevating some to the status of "prison guards" and demoting everyone else to the status of prisoners under constant suspicion and surveillance.

"Whew! You sure gotta climb a lot of steps to get to the Capitol Building here in Washington. Well I wonder who that sad little scrap of paper is?" And with those words began one of my childhood favorite Schoolhouse Rock videos, which used to be on television back in the early 1970s when I wasn't really old enough to have any idea what exactly they were all about, or why they would sometimes show up in between episodes of Superfriends, Speed Racer, or Sigmund and the Sea Monsters. In I'm just a bill," we witness the progress by which "that sad little scrap of paper" receives a fancy seal and a president's signature and becomes a law ("He signed ya, Bill: Now you're a Law!"). Although the video does an admirable job depicting some of the checks and balances contained in the US Constitution, through which the members of both houses of the legislature must agree to send the bill forward to the executive branch for final approval before any proposed bill is signed into law, it does tend to convey the impression that any "good idea" can be transformed into "a Law" through the magical process of being debated by important-looking men in impressive-looking buildings with lots of steps and Greek columns, on top of high hills (and filled with long rows of impassive US Marines in dress blue uniforms, and statues of distinguished statesmen from previous generations), signed by the president using a fountain pen, and affixed with a shiny-looking seal with a ribbon. Nineteenth-century abolitionist, legal scholar and philosopher Lysander Spooner (1808 - 1887) would vehemently disagree that something becomes "a law" just because it goes through the above process and receives a president's signature and a fancy stamp. In fact, he published a treatise in 1850 entitled A Defence for Fugitive Slaves against the Acts of Congress of February 12, 1793 and September 18, 1850, in which he argued that an illegal law is no law at all, and confers no obligation on anyone to obey it, nor any authority to anyone desiring to enforce it. He begins his treatise with the complete copy of each of the two acts in question, both of which were considered "law" in 1850, compelling men or women who knew of a "fugitive slave" to help catch that "fugitive slave" or face penalties including fines and imprisonment (the term "slave" is put in quotation marks here because Spooner argues that no person can ever own another person, and that there actually is no such thing as a legal slave or the legal condition of slavery, all so-called "laws" which make one person the property of another being illegal and criminal). Those two so-called laws (the Fugitive Slave Act of 1793 and the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850) were both signed by the presidents of their day, George Washington in the first instance and Millard Fillmore in the second (they also bear the signatures of the respective Speakers of the House and Presidents of the Senate). But these signatures do not make them true laws, according to Spooner's arguments. Spooner demonstrates that holding anyone else as property is a crime, and that putting something on paper, stamping it with fancy seals, embellishing it with fancy legal language, and endorsing it with the signatures of people bearing impressive titles does not make it into law: it's still just a "sad little scrap of paper" in his eyes. He even goes so far as to say that men and women have the right to resist illegal laws, in what is undoubtedly among the most important sections of his argument, found on pages 27 and 28. There, he powerfully dismantles the counter-arguments that he anticipates from those who would argue that once something is "a law," it must be obeyed until it is repealed. If it were really true that an illegal or unconstitutional law must be obeyed until repealed, he reasons, then "there would therefore be no difference at all between a constitutional and an unconstitutional law, in respect to their binding force; and that would be equivalent to abolishing the constitution, and giving to the government unlimited power" (28). Those who would disagree with Lysander Spooner on this point are invited to participate in a mental experiment, in which they imagine that the president has signed a law saying that if you in any way hinder the search for an escaped slave, or in any way assist a person who has been designated a "slave" and who has run away and is hiding from the authorities, then you yourself are a criminal and can be subject to enormous fines and imprisonment. Note that this is not just a hypothetical scenario: the first and the thirteenth presidents of the United States each signed such a proposition into "law." Today, nobody reading this blog would likely argue that they would feel a moral duty to obey such a "law," or that they would have to actually support it until such time as they could eventually get it repealed through the same arduous process depicted in the Schoolhouse Rock video shown above. Nearly every man or woman would agree with Spooner that the institution of slavery and "laws" enforcing one person's ability to "own" another are not laws but rather outrageous crimes, and would reject the notion that writing such a "law" down on a piece of paper, stamping it with a pretty seal and adding some flowery signatures suddenly turns it into something that must be willingly and voluntarily obeyed until it can be debated and eventually repealed. Writing something on a piece of paper does not make it a law. But, if this is true, then what does make something a law? Lysander Spooner argued that the actions of men and women cannot actually make anything a law, but that there is already an immutable or unchangeable universal law which he called "Natural Law" or the "Science of Justice." He believed that human society should only enforce natural law, and not dream up additional or "artificial" laws, and that trying to add to or subtract from the natural law is as foolish as trying to add to or subtract from other natural laws, such as the law of gravity. He argued that men and women could voluntarily band together to help ensure compliance with this natural law among their group, but that they could not compel others to join that voluntary association. Even within such a voluntary association, he believed that people or groups could only rightly compel compliance with the natural law, which was generally extremely simple and basically entailed the command to "live honestly, hurt no one, and give everyone his or her due." In an 1882 publication entitled Natural Law; or The Science of Justice, Spooner set out to explain the concept of natural law. In it, he made a distinction between those things that everyone has a legal duty to either do or to refrain from doing, and which others can and must compel in others, and those things which everyone has a moral duty to do but which must be left up to each person's own judgment and which no one has the right or duty to compel. Below is a table based upon Spooner's 1882 text, generally following the order and wording of his argument: The left column (labeled "Legal Duty" and highlighted in yellow), in Spooner's view, constitutes those things which are part of the natural law, and can actually be the only things which anyone can rightfully use force to uphold. He says that everyone has a duty to refrain from injuring others, and that force may and must be used when someone sees someone else in the act of injuring someone else. Spooner further argues in that 1882 text that nearly everyone understands these natural law prohibitions and duties before they are even old enough to know that "three and three are six, or five and five ten" (9). The right column (labeled "Moral Duty" and highlighted in green), in Spooner's view, constitutes those things which we do have a moral duty to perform, but which no one else can compel us to do: we must judge the extent to which we are able to do those things, and how we wish to best accomplish them when we do decide to do them. Thus, in Spooner's view, any so-called law that goes beyond the legal duties in the left column (or, worse yet, directly contradicts and violates those legal duties, as did the Fugitive Slave Acts) is actually no law at all and it can and must be disobeyed as illegal and criminal, regardless of whether it was written down on paper using legal-sounding language and passed by men and women in fancy buildings and stamped with fancy stamps and inscribed with fancy signatures. At this point, the reader may be thinking that all of this is very nice, but what on earth does it have to do with the general subject matter covered in this blog? The answer is: everything. Because, as insightful thinkers such as Mark Passio have articulated, violations of natural law are so contrary to our innate understanding of right and wrong (remember that Spooner says we know it before we even know that 3 + 3 = 6) that artificial laws which violate natural law must always be dressed up with various symbols and word-formulas designed to convey legitimacy, and reinforced by systems of mind control by which men and women who should know that those violations are immoral can somehow be made to believe that those violations of natural law are instead right and good and deserving of support. Institutionalized violations of natural law are nearly always accompanied by powerful forms of illusion, or the creation of "false realities" that enable those violations to appear legitimate, and to get people to go along with them. Therefore, seeing through these false realities is of absolutely primary importance. This blog primarily examines false realities which can be seen operating all around us, including in the realm of conventional history as taught in all the institutions of academia and reinforced by the organs of the conventional media (see for example "Piercing the fog of deception that hides the contours of history" and also the two short videos entitled "The importance of challenging false narratives"). These false realities or false narratives which cause people to accept gross violations of natural law are operating today with just as much force as they were operating in Spooner's day -- perhaps even more so. False narratives assist in getting people to accept the premise that so-called "laws" permitting government surveillance of individual men and women at virtually any time and place are legitimate (see here and here). This is a violation of natural law in that it enables hidden enforcers and observers to treat individuals as criminals on the suspicion that they might do something to harm others, elevating some to the status of "prison guards" and demoting everyone else to the status of prisoners under constant suspicion and surveillance. False narratives convince people to accept the idea that men and women can and should be locked up and denied their freedom for possessing certain plants or mushrooms known to induce a state of ecstasy. This is a violation of natural law in that it uses force to prohibit behavior that in no way harms the person or property of another or infringes on another's rights. False narratives convince people to accept the idea that men and women representing the government and wearing military gear and driving military vehicles can point military weapons at people assembling in the streets to express themselves, or at people in their homes in a neighborhood where fugitives are supposedly hiding. These are clear violations of natural law in that such actions basically declare that force can be used against citizens whenever it is convenient for the government to say there is a need to do so, an idea which Spooner eloquently demolishes in pages 27 and 28 of his text against the Fugitive Slave Acts. In a passage labeled "Section IV" of his 1882 treatise on Natural Law, Spooner declares that the rights belonging to every human being by the unchangeable principle of justice "necessarily remain with him [or her] during life," and although these rights are "capable of being trampled upon" they are nevertheless "incapable of being blotted out, extinguished, annihilated, or separated from" each and every human being, and that there is no authority high enough to simply declare them null or void. False narratives have even apparently convinced some people that it is somehow excusable to cover up evidence of the potentially harmful effects of vaccines on certain children in order to support "herd immunity." All of the above examples, along with the many other violations of natural law currently taking place, are enabled and excused by a variety of false realities or false narratives, created and maintained in order to lend an air of legitimacy to these violations. So were many other horrendous violations of natural law which were enabled by false narratives and illusions throughout history, including the enslavement of Africans which Spooner argued against in the 1850s, to the destruction of Native American tribes in the western US after the end of the US Civil War and the seizure of their lands and their confinement to reservations or "agencies," to the seizure of the Hawaiian Islands and the Philippines in the years after that, and on and on right up to the present. All of the above examples were enabled by lies, illusions, and false narratives or false realities. For more on breaking through illusions and false realities, and creating new realities, see for example this previous post entitled "Jon Rappoport's talk on the trickster-god and creating reality." It is one of Lysander Spooner's singular contributions that he perceived and forcefully argued that a criminal "law" is no law at all, and that men and women have the right and the duty to treat it as such, and to inform others of their right to do the same. Putting something on paper doesn't make it a "law" -- even if it has been adorned with all the necessary stamps and signatures. As Spooner alludes in the writings linked above, the US Constitution as originally designed, and especially the Bill of Rights as originally conceived, were designed to safeguard natural-law rights in many ways, and to the extent that Schoolhouse Rock taught those principles to a new generation in the 1970s, it can be commended. Perhaps Spooner's arguments about an illegal law being no law at all could not really be expected to be squeezed into the "I'm Just a Bill" song. But Lysander Spooner's arguments deserve to be brought into the modern era, in much the same way that the creators of Schoolhouse Rock tried to speak to the younger generation of the 1970s using the language and imagery of the 1970s. Spooner's arguments on behalf of the individual's rights under natural law -- rights which could never be abridged by any authority -- and his arguments against the creation of arbitrary "laws" which everyone has to obey just because a legislature or a president gave them the title of a "law" deserve examination, consideration, and thoughtful debate today more than ever. And the false narratives supporting so-called laws which supposedly authorize some people to use violence against others, or to threaten violence against others, or to take away the freedom of others when those others have not done anything to harm anyone else's persons or property, must be shown to be the form of mind control that they are. No individuals or groups can give themselves the right to violate natural law and in doing so to infringe on anyone else's rights, simply by writing something down on a "sad little scrap of paper."

<urn:uuid:17474726-e53e-48c9-a980-028439f26526>

CC-MAIN-2018-13

http://www.starmythworld.com/mathisencorollary/2014/09/does-writing-something-on-piece-of.html

s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2018-13/segments/1521257647892.89/warc/CC-MAIN-20180322151300-20180322171300-00710.warc.gz

en

<urn:uuid:17474726-e53e-48c9-a980-028439f26526>_41

False narratives convince people to accept the idea that men and women can and should be locked up and denied their freedom for possessing certain plants or mushrooms known to induce a state of ecstasy.

"Whew! You sure gotta climb a lot of steps to get to the Capitol Building here in Washington. Well I wonder who that sad little scrap of paper is?" And with those words began one of my childhood favorite Schoolhouse Rock videos, which used to be on television back in the early 1970s when I wasn't really old enough to have any idea what exactly they were all about, or why they would sometimes show up in between episodes of Superfriends, Speed Racer, or Sigmund and the Sea Monsters. In I'm just a bill," we witness the progress by which "that sad little scrap of paper" receives a fancy seal and a president's signature and becomes a law ("He signed ya, Bill: Now you're a Law!"). Although the video does an admirable job depicting some of the checks and balances contained in the US Constitution, through which the members of both houses of the legislature must agree to send the bill forward to the executive branch for final approval before any proposed bill is signed into law, it does tend to convey the impression that any "good idea" can be transformed into "a Law" through the magical process of being debated by important-looking men in impressive-looking buildings with lots of steps and Greek columns, on top of high hills (and filled with long rows of impassive US Marines in dress blue uniforms, and statues of distinguished statesmen from previous generations), signed by the president using a fountain pen, and affixed with a shiny-looking seal with a ribbon. Nineteenth-century abolitionist, legal scholar and philosopher Lysander Spooner (1808 - 1887) would vehemently disagree that something becomes "a law" just because it goes through the above process and receives a president's signature and a fancy stamp. In fact, he published a treatise in 1850 entitled A Defence for Fugitive Slaves against the Acts of Congress of February 12, 1793 and September 18, 1850, in which he argued that an illegal law is no law at all, and confers no obligation on anyone to obey it, nor any authority to anyone desiring to enforce it. He begins his treatise with the complete copy of each of the two acts in question, both of which were considered "law" in 1850, compelling men or women who knew of a "fugitive slave" to help catch that "fugitive slave" or face penalties including fines and imprisonment (the term "slave" is put in quotation marks here because Spooner argues that no person can ever own another person, and that there actually is no such thing as a legal slave or the legal condition of slavery, all so-called "laws" which make one person the property of another being illegal and criminal). Those two so-called laws (the Fugitive Slave Act of 1793 and the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850) were both signed by the presidents of their day, George Washington in the first instance and Millard Fillmore in the second (they also bear the signatures of the respective Speakers of the House and Presidents of the Senate). But these signatures do not make them true laws, according to Spooner's arguments. Spooner demonstrates that holding anyone else as property is a crime, and that putting something on paper, stamping it with fancy seals, embellishing it with fancy legal language, and endorsing it with the signatures of people bearing impressive titles does not make it into law: it's still just a "sad little scrap of paper" in his eyes. He even goes so far as to say that men and women have the right to resist illegal laws, in what is undoubtedly among the most important sections of his argument, found on pages 27 and 28. There, he powerfully dismantles the counter-arguments that he anticipates from those who would argue that once something is "a law," it must be obeyed until it is repealed. If it were really true that an illegal or unconstitutional law must be obeyed until repealed, he reasons, then "there would therefore be no difference at all between a constitutional and an unconstitutional law, in respect to their binding force; and that would be equivalent to abolishing the constitution, and giving to the government unlimited power" (28). Those who would disagree with Lysander Spooner on this point are invited to participate in a mental experiment, in which they imagine that the president has signed a law saying that if you in any way hinder the search for an escaped slave, or in any way assist a person who has been designated a "slave" and who has run away and is hiding from the authorities, then you yourself are a criminal and can be subject to enormous fines and imprisonment. Note that this is not just a hypothetical scenario: the first and the thirteenth presidents of the United States each signed such a proposition into "law." Today, nobody reading this blog would likely argue that they would feel a moral duty to obey such a "law," or that they would have to actually support it until such time as they could eventually get it repealed through the same arduous process depicted in the Schoolhouse Rock video shown above. Nearly every man or woman would agree with Spooner that the institution of slavery and "laws" enforcing one person's ability to "own" another are not laws but rather outrageous crimes, and would reject the notion that writing such a "law" down on a piece of paper, stamping it with a pretty seal and adding some flowery signatures suddenly turns it into something that must be willingly and voluntarily obeyed until it can be debated and eventually repealed. Writing something on a piece of paper does not make it a law. But, if this is true, then what does make something a law? Lysander Spooner argued that the actions of men and women cannot actually make anything a law, but that there is already an immutable or unchangeable universal law which he called "Natural Law" or the "Science of Justice." He believed that human society should only enforce natural law, and not dream up additional or "artificial" laws, and that trying to add to or subtract from the natural law is as foolish as trying to add to or subtract from other natural laws, such as the law of gravity. He argued that men and women could voluntarily band together to help ensure compliance with this natural law among their group, but that they could not compel others to join that voluntary association. Even within such a voluntary association, he believed that people or groups could only rightly compel compliance with the natural law, which was generally extremely simple and basically entailed the command to "live honestly, hurt no one, and give everyone his or her due." In an 1882 publication entitled Natural Law; or The Science of Justice, Spooner set out to explain the concept of natural law. In it, he made a distinction between those things that everyone has a legal duty to either do or to refrain from doing, and which others can and must compel in others, and those things which everyone has a moral duty to do but which must be left up to each person's own judgment and which no one has the right or duty to compel. Below is a table based upon Spooner's 1882 text, generally following the order and wording of his argument: The left column (labeled "Legal Duty" and highlighted in yellow), in Spooner's view, constitutes those things which are part of the natural law, and can actually be the only things which anyone can rightfully use force to uphold. He says that everyone has a duty to refrain from injuring others, and that force may and must be used when someone sees someone else in the act of injuring someone else. Spooner further argues in that 1882 text that nearly everyone understands these natural law prohibitions and duties before they are even old enough to know that "three and three are six, or five and five ten" (9). The right column (labeled "Moral Duty" and highlighted in green), in Spooner's view, constitutes those things which we do have a moral duty to perform, but which no one else can compel us to do: we must judge the extent to which we are able to do those things, and how we wish to best accomplish them when we do decide to do them. Thus, in Spooner's view, any so-called law that goes beyond the legal duties in the left column (or, worse yet, directly contradicts and violates those legal duties, as did the Fugitive Slave Acts) is actually no law at all and it can and must be disobeyed as illegal and criminal, regardless of whether it was written down on paper using legal-sounding language and passed by men and women in fancy buildings and stamped with fancy stamps and inscribed with fancy signatures. At this point, the reader may be thinking that all of this is very nice, but what on earth does it have to do with the general subject matter covered in this blog? The answer is: everything. Because, as insightful thinkers such as Mark Passio have articulated, violations of natural law are so contrary to our innate understanding of right and wrong (remember that Spooner says we know it before we even know that 3 + 3 = 6) that artificial laws which violate natural law must always be dressed up with various symbols and word-formulas designed to convey legitimacy, and reinforced by systems of mind control by which men and women who should know that those violations are immoral can somehow be made to believe that those violations of natural law are instead right and good and deserving of support. Institutionalized violations of natural law are nearly always accompanied by powerful forms of illusion, or the creation of "false realities" that enable those violations to appear legitimate, and to get people to go along with them. Therefore, seeing through these false realities is of absolutely primary importance. This blog primarily examines false realities which can be seen operating all around us, including in the realm of conventional history as taught in all the institutions of academia and reinforced by the organs of the conventional media (see for example "Piercing the fog of deception that hides the contours of history" and also the two short videos entitled "The importance of challenging false narratives"). These false realities or false narratives which cause people to accept gross violations of natural law are operating today with just as much force as they were operating in Spooner's day -- perhaps even more so. False narratives assist in getting people to accept the premise that so-called "laws" permitting government surveillance of individual men and women at virtually any time and place are legitimate (see here and here). This is a violation of natural law in that it enables hidden enforcers and observers to treat individuals as criminals on the suspicion that they might do something to harm others, elevating some to the status of "prison guards" and demoting everyone else to the status of prisoners under constant suspicion and surveillance. False narratives convince people to accept the idea that men and women can and should be locked up and denied their freedom for possessing certain plants or mushrooms known to induce a state of ecstasy. This is a violation of natural law in that it uses force to prohibit behavior that in no way harms the person or property of another or infringes on another's rights. False narratives convince people to accept the idea that men and women representing the government and wearing military gear and driving military vehicles can point military weapons at people assembling in the streets to express themselves, or at people in their homes in a neighborhood where fugitives are supposedly hiding. These are clear violations of natural law in that such actions basically declare that force can be used against citizens whenever it is convenient for the government to say there is a need to do so, an idea which Spooner eloquently demolishes in pages 27 and 28 of his text against the Fugitive Slave Acts. In a passage labeled "Section IV" of his 1882 treatise on Natural Law, Spooner declares that the rights belonging to every human being by the unchangeable principle of justice "necessarily remain with him [or her] during life," and although these rights are "capable of being trampled upon" they are nevertheless "incapable of being blotted out, extinguished, annihilated, or separated from" each and every human being, and that there is no authority high enough to simply declare them null or void. False narratives have even apparently convinced some people that it is somehow excusable to cover up evidence of the potentially harmful effects of vaccines on certain children in order to support "herd immunity." All of the above examples, along with the many other violations of natural law currently taking place, are enabled and excused by a variety of false realities or false narratives, created and maintained in order to lend an air of legitimacy to these violations. So were many other horrendous violations of natural law which were enabled by false narratives and illusions throughout history, including the enslavement of Africans which Spooner argued against in the 1850s, to the destruction of Native American tribes in the western US after the end of the US Civil War and the seizure of their lands and their confinement to reservations or "agencies," to the seizure of the Hawaiian Islands and the Philippines in the years after that, and on and on right up to the present. All of the above examples were enabled by lies, illusions, and false narratives or false realities. For more on breaking through illusions and false realities, and creating new realities, see for example this previous post entitled "Jon Rappoport's talk on the trickster-god and creating reality." It is one of Lysander Spooner's singular contributions that he perceived and forcefully argued that a criminal "law" is no law at all, and that men and women have the right and the duty to treat it as such, and to inform others of their right to do the same. Putting something on paper doesn't make it a "law" -- even if it has been adorned with all the necessary stamps and signatures. As Spooner alludes in the writings linked above, the US Constitution as originally designed, and especially the Bill of Rights as originally conceived, were designed to safeguard natural-law rights in many ways, and to the extent that Schoolhouse Rock taught those principles to a new generation in the 1970s, it can be commended. Perhaps Spooner's arguments about an illegal law being no law at all could not really be expected to be squeezed into the "I'm Just a Bill" song. But Lysander Spooner's arguments deserve to be brought into the modern era, in much the same way that the creators of Schoolhouse Rock tried to speak to the younger generation of the 1970s using the language and imagery of the 1970s. Spooner's arguments on behalf of the individual's rights under natural law -- rights which could never be abridged by any authority -- and his arguments against the creation of arbitrary "laws" which everyone has to obey just because a legislature or a president gave them the title of a "law" deserve examination, consideration, and thoughtful debate today more than ever. And the false narratives supporting so-called laws which supposedly authorize some people to use violence against others, or to threaten violence against others, or to take away the freedom of others when those others have not done anything to harm anyone else's persons or property, must be shown to be the form of mind control that they are. No individuals or groups can give themselves the right to violate natural law and in doing so to infringe on anyone else's rights, simply by writing something down on a "sad little scrap of paper."

<urn:uuid:17474726-e53e-48c9-a980-028439f26526>

CC-MAIN-2018-13

http://www.starmythworld.com/mathisencorollary/2014/09/does-writing-something-on-piece-of.html

s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2018-13/segments/1521257647892.89/warc/CC-MAIN-20180322151300-20180322171300-00710.warc.gz

en

<urn:uuid:17474726-e53e-48c9-a980-028439f26526>_42

This is a violation of natural law in that it uses force to prohibit behavior that in no way harms the person or property of another or infringes on another's rights.

"Whew! You sure gotta climb a lot of steps to get to the Capitol Building here in Washington. Well I wonder who that sad little scrap of paper is?" And with those words began one of my childhood favorite Schoolhouse Rock videos, which used to be on television back in the early 1970s when I wasn't really old enough to have any idea what exactly they were all about, or why they would sometimes show up in between episodes of Superfriends, Speed Racer, or Sigmund and the Sea Monsters. In I'm just a bill," we witness the progress by which "that sad little scrap of paper" receives a fancy seal and a president's signature and becomes a law ("He signed ya, Bill: Now you're a Law!"). Although the video does an admirable job depicting some of the checks and balances contained in the US Constitution, through which the members of both houses of the legislature must agree to send the bill forward to the executive branch for final approval before any proposed bill is signed into law, it does tend to convey the impression that any "good idea" can be transformed into "a Law" through the magical process of being debated by important-looking men in impressive-looking buildings with lots of steps and Greek columns, on top of high hills (and filled with long rows of impassive US Marines in dress blue uniforms, and statues of distinguished statesmen from previous generations), signed by the president using a fountain pen, and affixed with a shiny-looking seal with a ribbon. Nineteenth-century abolitionist, legal scholar and philosopher Lysander Spooner (1808 - 1887) would vehemently disagree that something becomes "a law" just because it goes through the above process and receives a president's signature and a fancy stamp. In fact, he published a treatise in 1850 entitled A Defence for Fugitive Slaves against the Acts of Congress of February 12, 1793 and September 18, 1850, in which he argued that an illegal law is no law at all, and confers no obligation on anyone to obey it, nor any authority to anyone desiring to enforce it. He begins his treatise with the complete copy of each of the two acts in question, both of which were considered "law" in 1850, compelling men or women who knew of a "fugitive slave" to help catch that "fugitive slave" or face penalties including fines and imprisonment (the term "slave" is put in quotation marks here because Spooner argues that no person can ever own another person, and that there actually is no such thing as a legal slave or the legal condition of slavery, all so-called "laws" which make one person the property of another being illegal and criminal). Those two so-called laws (the Fugitive Slave Act of 1793 and the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850) were both signed by the presidents of their day, George Washington in the first instance and Millard Fillmore in the second (they also bear the signatures of the respective Speakers of the House and Presidents of the Senate). But these signatures do not make them true laws, according to Spooner's arguments. Spooner demonstrates that holding anyone else as property is a crime, and that putting something on paper, stamping it with fancy seals, embellishing it with fancy legal language, and endorsing it with the signatures of people bearing impressive titles does not make it into law: it's still just a "sad little scrap of paper" in his eyes. He even goes so far as to say that men and women have the right to resist illegal laws, in what is undoubtedly among the most important sections of his argument, found on pages 27 and 28. There, he powerfully dismantles the counter-arguments that he anticipates from those who would argue that once something is "a law," it must be obeyed until it is repealed. If it were really true that an illegal or unconstitutional law must be obeyed until repealed, he reasons, then "there would therefore be no difference at all between a constitutional and an unconstitutional law, in respect to their binding force; and that would be equivalent to abolishing the constitution, and giving to the government unlimited power" (28). Those who would disagree with Lysander Spooner on this point are invited to participate in a mental experiment, in which they imagine that the president has signed a law saying that if you in any way hinder the search for an escaped slave, or in any way assist a person who has been designated a "slave" and who has run away and is hiding from the authorities, then you yourself are a criminal and can be subject to enormous fines and imprisonment. Note that this is not just a hypothetical scenario: the first and the thirteenth presidents of the United States each signed such a proposition into "law." Today, nobody reading this blog would likely argue that they would feel a moral duty to obey such a "law," or that they would have to actually support it until such time as they could eventually get it repealed through the same arduous process depicted in the Schoolhouse Rock video shown above. Nearly every man or woman would agree with Spooner that the institution of slavery and "laws" enforcing one person's ability to "own" another are not laws but rather outrageous crimes, and would reject the notion that writing such a "law" down on a piece of paper, stamping it with a pretty seal and adding some flowery signatures suddenly turns it into something that must be willingly and voluntarily obeyed until it can be debated and eventually repealed. Writing something on a piece of paper does not make it a law. But, if this is true, then what does make something a law? Lysander Spooner argued that the actions of men and women cannot actually make anything a law, but that there is already an immutable or unchangeable universal law which he called "Natural Law" or the "Science of Justice." He believed that human society should only enforce natural law, and not dream up additional or "artificial" laws, and that trying to add to or subtract from the natural law is as foolish as trying to add to or subtract from other natural laws, such as the law of gravity. He argued that men and women could voluntarily band together to help ensure compliance with this natural law among their group, but that they could not compel others to join that voluntary association. Even within such a voluntary association, he believed that people or groups could only rightly compel compliance with the natural law, which was generally extremely simple and basically entailed the command to "live honestly, hurt no one, and give everyone his or her due." In an 1882 publication entitled Natural Law; or The Science of Justice, Spooner set out to explain the concept of natural law. In it, he made a distinction between those things that everyone has a legal duty to either do or to refrain from doing, and which others can and must compel in others, and those things which everyone has a moral duty to do but which must be left up to each person's own judgment and which no one has the right or duty to compel. Below is a table based upon Spooner's 1882 text, generally following the order and wording of his argument: The left column (labeled "Legal Duty" and highlighted in yellow), in Spooner's view, constitutes those things which are part of the natural law, and can actually be the only things which anyone can rightfully use force to uphold. He says that everyone has a duty to refrain from injuring others, and that force may and must be used when someone sees someone else in the act of injuring someone else. Spooner further argues in that 1882 text that nearly everyone understands these natural law prohibitions and duties before they are even old enough to know that "three and three are six, or five and five ten" (9). The right column (labeled "Moral Duty" and highlighted in green), in Spooner's view, constitutes those things which we do have a moral duty to perform, but which no one else can compel us to do: we must judge the extent to which we are able to do those things, and how we wish to best accomplish them when we do decide to do them. Thus, in Spooner's view, any so-called law that goes beyond the legal duties in the left column (or, worse yet, directly contradicts and violates those legal duties, as did the Fugitive Slave Acts) is actually no law at all and it can and must be disobeyed as illegal and criminal, regardless of whether it was written down on paper using legal-sounding language and passed by men and women in fancy buildings and stamped with fancy stamps and inscribed with fancy signatures. At this point, the reader may be thinking that all of this is very nice, but what on earth does it have to do with the general subject matter covered in this blog? The answer is: everything. Because, as insightful thinkers such as Mark Passio have articulated, violations of natural law are so contrary to our innate understanding of right and wrong (remember that Spooner says we know it before we even know that 3 + 3 = 6) that artificial laws which violate natural law must always be dressed up with various symbols and word-formulas designed to convey legitimacy, and reinforced by systems of mind control by which men and women who should know that those violations are immoral can somehow be made to believe that those violations of natural law are instead right and good and deserving of support. Institutionalized violations of natural law are nearly always accompanied by powerful forms of illusion, or the creation of "false realities" that enable those violations to appear legitimate, and to get people to go along with them. Therefore, seeing through these false realities is of absolutely primary importance. This blog primarily examines false realities which can be seen operating all around us, including in the realm of conventional history as taught in all the institutions of academia and reinforced by the organs of the conventional media (see for example "Piercing the fog of deception that hides the contours of history" and also the two short videos entitled "The importance of challenging false narratives"). These false realities or false narratives which cause people to accept gross violations of natural law are operating today with just as much force as they were operating in Spooner's day -- perhaps even more so. False narratives assist in getting people to accept the premise that so-called "laws" permitting government surveillance of individual men and women at virtually any time and place are legitimate (see here and here). This is a violation of natural law in that it enables hidden enforcers and observers to treat individuals as criminals on the suspicion that they might do something to harm others, elevating some to the status of "prison guards" and demoting everyone else to the status of prisoners under constant suspicion and surveillance. False narratives convince people to accept the idea that men and women can and should be locked up and denied their freedom for possessing certain plants or mushrooms known to induce a state of ecstasy. This is a violation of natural law in that it uses force to prohibit behavior that in no way harms the person or property of another or infringes on another's rights. False narratives convince people to accept the idea that men and women representing the government and wearing military gear and driving military vehicles can point military weapons at people assembling in the streets to express themselves, or at people in their homes in a neighborhood where fugitives are supposedly hiding. These are clear violations of natural law in that such actions basically declare that force can be used against citizens whenever it is convenient for the government to say there is a need to do so, an idea which Spooner eloquently demolishes in pages 27 and 28 of his text against the Fugitive Slave Acts. In a passage labeled "Section IV" of his 1882 treatise on Natural Law, Spooner declares that the rights belonging to every human being by the unchangeable principle of justice "necessarily remain with him [or her] during life," and although these rights are "capable of being trampled upon" they are nevertheless "incapable of being blotted out, extinguished, annihilated, or separated from" each and every human being, and that there is no authority high enough to simply declare them null or void. False narratives have even apparently convinced some people that it is somehow excusable to cover up evidence of the potentially harmful effects of vaccines on certain children in order to support "herd immunity." All of the above examples, along with the many other violations of natural law currently taking place, are enabled and excused by a variety of false realities or false narratives, created and maintained in order to lend an air of legitimacy to these violations. So were many other horrendous violations of natural law which were enabled by false narratives and illusions throughout history, including the enslavement of Africans which Spooner argued against in the 1850s, to the destruction of Native American tribes in the western US after the end of the US Civil War and the seizure of their lands and their confinement to reservations or "agencies," to the seizure of the Hawaiian Islands and the Philippines in the years after that, and on and on right up to the present. All of the above examples were enabled by lies, illusions, and false narratives or false realities. For more on breaking through illusions and false realities, and creating new realities, see for example this previous post entitled "Jon Rappoport's talk on the trickster-god and creating reality." It is one of Lysander Spooner's singular contributions that he perceived and forcefully argued that a criminal "law" is no law at all, and that men and women have the right and the duty to treat it as such, and to inform others of their right to do the same. Putting something on paper doesn't make it a "law" -- even if it has been adorned with all the necessary stamps and signatures. As Spooner alludes in the writings linked above, the US Constitution as originally designed, and especially the Bill of Rights as originally conceived, were designed to safeguard natural-law rights in many ways, and to the extent that Schoolhouse Rock taught those principles to a new generation in the 1970s, it can be commended. Perhaps Spooner's arguments about an illegal law being no law at all could not really be expected to be squeezed into the "I'm Just a Bill" song. But Lysander Spooner's arguments deserve to be brought into the modern era, in much the same way that the creators of Schoolhouse Rock tried to speak to the younger generation of the 1970s using the language and imagery of the 1970s. Spooner's arguments on behalf of the individual's rights under natural law -- rights which could never be abridged by any authority -- and his arguments against the creation of arbitrary "laws" which everyone has to obey just because a legislature or a president gave them the title of a "law" deserve examination, consideration, and thoughtful debate today more than ever. And the false narratives supporting so-called laws which supposedly authorize some people to use violence against others, or to threaten violence against others, or to take away the freedom of others when those others have not done anything to harm anyone else's persons or property, must be shown to be the form of mind control that they are. No individuals or groups can give themselves the right to violate natural law and in doing so to infringe on anyone else's rights, simply by writing something down on a "sad little scrap of paper."

<urn:uuid:17474726-e53e-48c9-a980-028439f26526>

CC-MAIN-2018-13

http://www.starmythworld.com/mathisencorollary/2014/09/does-writing-something-on-piece-of.html

s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2018-13/segments/1521257647892.89/warc/CC-MAIN-20180322151300-20180322171300-00710.warc.gz

en

<urn:uuid:17474726-e53e-48c9-a980-028439f26526>_43

False narratives convince people to accept the idea that men and women representing the government and wearing military gear and driving military vehicles can point military weapons at people assembling in the streets to express themselves, or at people in their homes in a neighborhood where fugitives are supposedly hiding.

"Whew! You sure gotta climb a lot of steps to get to the Capitol Building here in Washington. Well I wonder who that sad little scrap of paper is?" And with those words began one of my childhood favorite Schoolhouse Rock videos, which used to be on television back in the early 1970s when I wasn't really old enough to have any idea what exactly they were all about, or why they would sometimes show up in between episodes of Superfriends, Speed Racer, or Sigmund and the Sea Monsters. In I'm just a bill," we witness the progress by which "that sad little scrap of paper" receives a fancy seal and a president's signature and becomes a law ("He signed ya, Bill: Now you're a Law!"). Although the video does an admirable job depicting some of the checks and balances contained in the US Constitution, through which the members of both houses of the legislature must agree to send the bill forward to the executive branch for final approval before any proposed bill is signed into law, it does tend to convey the impression that any "good idea" can be transformed into "a Law" through the magical process of being debated by important-looking men in impressive-looking buildings with lots of steps and Greek columns, on top of high hills (and filled with long rows of impassive US Marines in dress blue uniforms, and statues of distinguished statesmen from previous generations), signed by the president using a fountain pen, and affixed with a shiny-looking seal with a ribbon. Nineteenth-century abolitionist, legal scholar and philosopher Lysander Spooner (1808 - 1887) would vehemently disagree that something becomes "a law" just because it goes through the above process and receives a president's signature and a fancy stamp. In fact, he published a treatise in 1850 entitled A Defence for Fugitive Slaves against the Acts of Congress of February 12, 1793 and September 18, 1850, in which he argued that an illegal law is no law at all, and confers no obligation on anyone to obey it, nor any authority to anyone desiring to enforce it. He begins his treatise with the complete copy of each of the two acts in question, both of which were considered "law" in 1850, compelling men or women who knew of a "fugitive slave" to help catch that "fugitive slave" or face penalties including fines and imprisonment (the term "slave" is put in quotation marks here because Spooner argues that no person can ever own another person, and that there actually is no such thing as a legal slave or the legal condition of slavery, all so-called "laws" which make one person the property of another being illegal and criminal). Those two so-called laws (the Fugitive Slave Act of 1793 and the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850) were both signed by the presidents of their day, George Washington in the first instance and Millard Fillmore in the second (they also bear the signatures of the respective Speakers of the House and Presidents of the Senate). But these signatures do not make them true laws, according to Spooner's arguments. Spooner demonstrates that holding anyone else as property is a crime, and that putting something on paper, stamping it with fancy seals, embellishing it with fancy legal language, and endorsing it with the signatures of people bearing impressive titles does not make it into law: it's still just a "sad little scrap of paper" in his eyes. He even goes so far as to say that men and women have the right to resist illegal laws, in what is undoubtedly among the most important sections of his argument, found on pages 27 and 28. There, he powerfully dismantles the counter-arguments that he anticipates from those who would argue that once something is "a law," it must be obeyed until it is repealed. If it were really true that an illegal or unconstitutional law must be obeyed until repealed, he reasons, then "there would therefore be no difference at all between a constitutional and an unconstitutional law, in respect to their binding force; and that would be equivalent to abolishing the constitution, and giving to the government unlimited power" (28). Those who would disagree with Lysander Spooner on this point are invited to participate in a mental experiment, in which they imagine that the president has signed a law saying that if you in any way hinder the search for an escaped slave, or in any way assist a person who has been designated a "slave" and who has run away and is hiding from the authorities, then you yourself are a criminal and can be subject to enormous fines and imprisonment. Note that this is not just a hypothetical scenario: the first and the thirteenth presidents of the United States each signed such a proposition into "law." Today, nobody reading this blog would likely argue that they would feel a moral duty to obey such a "law," or that they would have to actually support it until such time as they could eventually get it repealed through the same arduous process depicted in the Schoolhouse Rock video shown above. Nearly every man or woman would agree with Spooner that the institution of slavery and "laws" enforcing one person's ability to "own" another are not laws but rather outrageous crimes, and would reject the notion that writing such a "law" down on a piece of paper, stamping it with a pretty seal and adding some flowery signatures suddenly turns it into something that must be willingly and voluntarily obeyed until it can be debated and eventually repealed. Writing something on a piece of paper does not make it a law. But, if this is true, then what does make something a law? Lysander Spooner argued that the actions of men and women cannot actually make anything a law, but that there is already an immutable or unchangeable universal law which he called "Natural Law" or the "Science of Justice." He believed that human society should only enforce natural law, and not dream up additional or "artificial" laws, and that trying to add to or subtract from the natural law is as foolish as trying to add to or subtract from other natural laws, such as the law of gravity. He argued that men and women could voluntarily band together to help ensure compliance with this natural law among their group, but that they could not compel others to join that voluntary association. Even within such a voluntary association, he believed that people or groups could only rightly compel compliance with the natural law, which was generally extremely simple and basically entailed the command to "live honestly, hurt no one, and give everyone his or her due." In an 1882 publication entitled Natural Law; or The Science of Justice, Spooner set out to explain the concept of natural law. In it, he made a distinction between those things that everyone has a legal duty to either do or to refrain from doing, and which others can and must compel in others, and those things which everyone has a moral duty to do but which must be left up to each person's own judgment and which no one has the right or duty to compel. Below is a table based upon Spooner's 1882 text, generally following the order and wording of his argument: The left column (labeled "Legal Duty" and highlighted in yellow), in Spooner's view, constitutes those things which are part of the natural law, and can actually be the only things which anyone can rightfully use force to uphold. He says that everyone has a duty to refrain from injuring others, and that force may and must be used when someone sees someone else in the act of injuring someone else. Spooner further argues in that 1882 text that nearly everyone understands these natural law prohibitions and duties before they are even old enough to know that "three and three are six, or five and five ten" (9). The right column (labeled "Moral Duty" and highlighted in green), in Spooner's view, constitutes those things which we do have a moral duty to perform, but which no one else can compel us to do: we must judge the extent to which we are able to do those things, and how we wish to best accomplish them when we do decide to do them. Thus, in Spooner's view, any so-called law that goes beyond the legal duties in the left column (or, worse yet, directly contradicts and violates those legal duties, as did the Fugitive Slave Acts) is actually no law at all and it can and must be disobeyed as illegal and criminal, regardless of whether it was written down on paper using legal-sounding language and passed by men and women in fancy buildings and stamped with fancy stamps and inscribed with fancy signatures. At this point, the reader may be thinking that all of this is very nice, but what on earth does it have to do with the general subject matter covered in this blog? The answer is: everything. Because, as insightful thinkers such as Mark Passio have articulated, violations of natural law are so contrary to our innate understanding of right and wrong (remember that Spooner says we know it before we even know that 3 + 3 = 6) that artificial laws which violate natural law must always be dressed up with various symbols and word-formulas designed to convey legitimacy, and reinforced by systems of mind control by which men and women who should know that those violations are immoral can somehow be made to believe that those violations of natural law are instead right and good and deserving of support. Institutionalized violations of natural law are nearly always accompanied by powerful forms of illusion, or the creation of "false realities" that enable those violations to appear legitimate, and to get people to go along with them. Therefore, seeing through these false realities is of absolutely primary importance. This blog primarily examines false realities which can be seen operating all around us, including in the realm of conventional history as taught in all the institutions of academia and reinforced by the organs of the conventional media (see for example "Piercing the fog of deception that hides the contours of history" and also the two short videos entitled "The importance of challenging false narratives"). These false realities or false narratives which cause people to accept gross violations of natural law are operating today with just as much force as they were operating in Spooner's day -- perhaps even more so. False narratives assist in getting people to accept the premise that so-called "laws" permitting government surveillance of individual men and women at virtually any time and place are legitimate (see here and here). This is a violation of natural law in that it enables hidden enforcers and observers to treat individuals as criminals on the suspicion that they might do something to harm others, elevating some to the status of "prison guards" and demoting everyone else to the status of prisoners under constant suspicion and surveillance. False narratives convince people to accept the idea that men and women can and should be locked up and denied their freedom for possessing certain plants or mushrooms known to induce a state of ecstasy. This is a violation of natural law in that it uses force to prohibit behavior that in no way harms the person or property of another or infringes on another's rights. False narratives convince people to accept the idea that men and women representing the government and wearing military gear and driving military vehicles can point military weapons at people assembling in the streets to express themselves, or at people in their homes in a neighborhood where fugitives are supposedly hiding. These are clear violations of natural law in that such actions basically declare that force can be used against citizens whenever it is convenient for the government to say there is a need to do so, an idea which Spooner eloquently demolishes in pages 27 and 28 of his text against the Fugitive Slave Acts. In a passage labeled "Section IV" of his 1882 treatise on Natural Law, Spooner declares that the rights belonging to every human being by the unchangeable principle of justice "necessarily remain with him [or her] during life," and although these rights are "capable of being trampled upon" they are nevertheless "incapable of being blotted out, extinguished, annihilated, or separated from" each and every human being, and that there is no authority high enough to simply declare them null or void. False narratives have even apparently convinced some people that it is somehow excusable to cover up evidence of the potentially harmful effects of vaccines on certain children in order to support "herd immunity." All of the above examples, along with the many other violations of natural law currently taking place, are enabled and excused by a variety of false realities or false narratives, created and maintained in order to lend an air of legitimacy to these violations. So were many other horrendous violations of natural law which were enabled by false narratives and illusions throughout history, including the enslavement of Africans which Spooner argued against in the 1850s, to the destruction of Native American tribes in the western US after the end of the US Civil War and the seizure of their lands and their confinement to reservations or "agencies," to the seizure of the Hawaiian Islands and the Philippines in the years after that, and on and on right up to the present. All of the above examples were enabled by lies, illusions, and false narratives or false realities. For more on breaking through illusions and false realities, and creating new realities, see for example this previous post entitled "Jon Rappoport's talk on the trickster-god and creating reality." It is one of Lysander Spooner's singular contributions that he perceived and forcefully argued that a criminal "law" is no law at all, and that men and women have the right and the duty to treat it as such, and to inform others of their right to do the same. Putting something on paper doesn't make it a "law" -- even if it has been adorned with all the necessary stamps and signatures. As Spooner alludes in the writings linked above, the US Constitution as originally designed, and especially the Bill of Rights as originally conceived, were designed to safeguard natural-law rights in many ways, and to the extent that Schoolhouse Rock taught those principles to a new generation in the 1970s, it can be commended. Perhaps Spooner's arguments about an illegal law being no law at all could not really be expected to be squeezed into the "I'm Just a Bill" song. But Lysander Spooner's arguments deserve to be brought into the modern era, in much the same way that the creators of Schoolhouse Rock tried to speak to the younger generation of the 1970s using the language and imagery of the 1970s. Spooner's arguments on behalf of the individual's rights under natural law -- rights which could never be abridged by any authority -- and his arguments against the creation of arbitrary "laws" which everyone has to obey just because a legislature or a president gave them the title of a "law" deserve examination, consideration, and thoughtful debate today more than ever. And the false narratives supporting so-called laws which supposedly authorize some people to use violence against others, or to threaten violence against others, or to take away the freedom of others when those others have not done anything to harm anyone else's persons or property, must be shown to be the form of mind control that they are. No individuals or groups can give themselves the right to violate natural law and in doing so to infringe on anyone else's rights, simply by writing something down on a "sad little scrap of paper."

<urn:uuid:17474726-e53e-48c9-a980-028439f26526>

CC-MAIN-2018-13

http://www.starmythworld.com/mathisencorollary/2014/09/does-writing-something-on-piece-of.html

s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2018-13/segments/1521257647892.89/warc/CC-MAIN-20180322151300-20180322171300-00710.warc.gz

en

<urn:uuid:17474726-e53e-48c9-a980-028439f26526>_44

These are clear violations of natural law in that such actions basically declare that force can be used against citizens whenever it is convenient for the government to say there is a need to do so, an idea which Spooner eloquently demolishes in pages 27 and 28 of his text against the Fugitive Slave Acts.

"Whew! You sure gotta climb a lot of steps to get to the Capitol Building here in Washington. Well I wonder who that sad little scrap of paper is?" And with those words began one of my childhood favorite Schoolhouse Rock videos, which used to be on television back in the early 1970s when I wasn't really old enough to have any idea what exactly they were all about, or why they would sometimes show up in between episodes of Superfriends, Speed Racer, or Sigmund and the Sea Monsters. In I'm just a bill," we witness the progress by which "that sad little scrap of paper" receives a fancy seal and a president's signature and becomes a law ("He signed ya, Bill: Now you're a Law!"). Although the video does an admirable job depicting some of the checks and balances contained in the US Constitution, through which the members of both houses of the legislature must agree to send the bill forward to the executive branch for final approval before any proposed bill is signed into law, it does tend to convey the impression that any "good idea" can be transformed into "a Law" through the magical process of being debated by important-looking men in impressive-looking buildings with lots of steps and Greek columns, on top of high hills (and filled with long rows of impassive US Marines in dress blue uniforms, and statues of distinguished statesmen from previous generations), signed by the president using a fountain pen, and affixed with a shiny-looking seal with a ribbon. Nineteenth-century abolitionist, legal scholar and philosopher Lysander Spooner (1808 - 1887) would vehemently disagree that something becomes "a law" just because it goes through the above process and receives a president's signature and a fancy stamp. In fact, he published a treatise in 1850 entitled A Defence for Fugitive Slaves against the Acts of Congress of February 12, 1793 and September 18, 1850, in which he argued that an illegal law is no law at all, and confers no obligation on anyone to obey it, nor any authority to anyone desiring to enforce it. He begins his treatise with the complete copy of each of the two acts in question, both of which were considered "law" in 1850, compelling men or women who knew of a "fugitive slave" to help catch that "fugitive slave" or face penalties including fines and imprisonment (the term "slave" is put in quotation marks here because Spooner argues that no person can ever own another person, and that there actually is no such thing as a legal slave or the legal condition of slavery, all so-called "laws" which make one person the property of another being illegal and criminal). Those two so-called laws (the Fugitive Slave Act of 1793 and the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850) were both signed by the presidents of their day, George Washington in the first instance and Millard Fillmore in the second (they also bear the signatures of the respective Speakers of the House and Presidents of the Senate). But these signatures do not make them true laws, according to Spooner's arguments. Spooner demonstrates that holding anyone else as property is a crime, and that putting something on paper, stamping it with fancy seals, embellishing it with fancy legal language, and endorsing it with the signatures of people bearing impressive titles does not make it into law: it's still just a "sad little scrap of paper" in his eyes. He even goes so far as to say that men and women have the right to resist illegal laws, in what is undoubtedly among the most important sections of his argument, found on pages 27 and 28. There, he powerfully dismantles the counter-arguments that he anticipates from those who would argue that once something is "a law," it must be obeyed until it is repealed. If it were really true that an illegal or unconstitutional law must be obeyed until repealed, he reasons, then "there would therefore be no difference at all between a constitutional and an unconstitutional law, in respect to their binding force; and that would be equivalent to abolishing the constitution, and giving to the government unlimited power" (28). Those who would disagree with Lysander Spooner on this point are invited to participate in a mental experiment, in which they imagine that the president has signed a law saying that if you in any way hinder the search for an escaped slave, or in any way assist a person who has been designated a "slave" and who has run away and is hiding from the authorities, then you yourself are a criminal and can be subject to enormous fines and imprisonment. Note that this is not just a hypothetical scenario: the first and the thirteenth presidents of the United States each signed such a proposition into "law." Today, nobody reading this blog would likely argue that they would feel a moral duty to obey such a "law," or that they would have to actually support it until such time as they could eventually get it repealed through the same arduous process depicted in the Schoolhouse Rock video shown above. Nearly every man or woman would agree with Spooner that the institution of slavery and "laws" enforcing one person's ability to "own" another are not laws but rather outrageous crimes, and would reject the notion that writing such a "law" down on a piece of paper, stamping it with a pretty seal and adding some flowery signatures suddenly turns it into something that must be willingly and voluntarily obeyed until it can be debated and eventually repealed. Writing something on a piece of paper does not make it a law. But, if this is true, then what does make something a law? Lysander Spooner argued that the actions of men and women cannot actually make anything a law, but that there is already an immutable or unchangeable universal law which he called "Natural Law" or the "Science of Justice." He believed that human society should only enforce natural law, and not dream up additional or "artificial" laws, and that trying to add to or subtract from the natural law is as foolish as trying to add to or subtract from other natural laws, such as the law of gravity. He argued that men and women could voluntarily band together to help ensure compliance with this natural law among their group, but that they could not compel others to join that voluntary association. Even within such a voluntary association, he believed that people or groups could only rightly compel compliance with the natural law, which was generally extremely simple and basically entailed the command to "live honestly, hurt no one, and give everyone his or her due." In an 1882 publication entitled Natural Law; or The Science of Justice, Spooner set out to explain the concept of natural law. In it, he made a distinction between those things that everyone has a legal duty to either do or to refrain from doing, and which others can and must compel in others, and those things which everyone has a moral duty to do but which must be left up to each person's own judgment and which no one has the right or duty to compel. Below is a table based upon Spooner's 1882 text, generally following the order and wording of his argument: The left column (labeled "Legal Duty" and highlighted in yellow), in Spooner's view, constitutes those things which are part of the natural law, and can actually be the only things which anyone can rightfully use force to uphold. He says that everyone has a duty to refrain from injuring others, and that force may and must be used when someone sees someone else in the act of injuring someone else. Spooner further argues in that 1882 text that nearly everyone understands these natural law prohibitions and duties before they are even old enough to know that "three and three are six, or five and five ten" (9). The right column (labeled "Moral Duty" and highlighted in green), in Spooner's view, constitutes those things which we do have a moral duty to perform, but which no one else can compel us to do: we must judge the extent to which we are able to do those things, and how we wish to best accomplish them when we do decide to do them. Thus, in Spooner's view, any so-called law that goes beyond the legal duties in the left column (or, worse yet, directly contradicts and violates those legal duties, as did the Fugitive Slave Acts) is actually no law at all and it can and must be disobeyed as illegal and criminal, regardless of whether it was written down on paper using legal-sounding language and passed by men and women in fancy buildings and stamped with fancy stamps and inscribed with fancy signatures. At this point, the reader may be thinking that all of this is very nice, but what on earth does it have to do with the general subject matter covered in this blog? The answer is: everything. Because, as insightful thinkers such as Mark Passio have articulated, violations of natural law are so contrary to our innate understanding of right and wrong (remember that Spooner says we know it before we even know that 3 + 3 = 6) that artificial laws which violate natural law must always be dressed up with various symbols and word-formulas designed to convey legitimacy, and reinforced by systems of mind control by which men and women who should know that those violations are immoral can somehow be made to believe that those violations of natural law are instead right and good and deserving of support. Institutionalized violations of natural law are nearly always accompanied by powerful forms of illusion, or the creation of "false realities" that enable those violations to appear legitimate, and to get people to go along with them. Therefore, seeing through these false realities is of absolutely primary importance. This blog primarily examines false realities which can be seen operating all around us, including in the realm of conventional history as taught in all the institutions of academia and reinforced by the organs of the conventional media (see for example "Piercing the fog of deception that hides the contours of history" and also the two short videos entitled "The importance of challenging false narratives"). These false realities or false narratives which cause people to accept gross violations of natural law are operating today with just as much force as they were operating in Spooner's day -- perhaps even more so. False narratives assist in getting people to accept the premise that so-called "laws" permitting government surveillance of individual men and women at virtually any time and place are legitimate (see here and here). This is a violation of natural law in that it enables hidden enforcers and observers to treat individuals as criminals on the suspicion that they might do something to harm others, elevating some to the status of "prison guards" and demoting everyone else to the status of prisoners under constant suspicion and surveillance. False narratives convince people to accept the idea that men and women can and should be locked up and denied their freedom for possessing certain plants or mushrooms known to induce a state of ecstasy. This is a violation of natural law in that it uses force to prohibit behavior that in no way harms the person or property of another or infringes on another's rights. False narratives convince people to accept the idea that men and women representing the government and wearing military gear and driving military vehicles can point military weapons at people assembling in the streets to express themselves, or at people in their homes in a neighborhood where fugitives are supposedly hiding. These are clear violations of natural law in that such actions basically declare that force can be used against citizens whenever it is convenient for the government to say there is a need to do so, an idea which Spooner eloquently demolishes in pages 27 and 28 of his text against the Fugitive Slave Acts. In a passage labeled "Section IV" of his 1882 treatise on Natural Law, Spooner declares that the rights belonging to every human being by the unchangeable principle of justice "necessarily remain with him [or her] during life," and although these rights are "capable of being trampled upon" they are nevertheless "incapable of being blotted out, extinguished, annihilated, or separated from" each and every human being, and that there is no authority high enough to simply declare them null or void. False narratives have even apparently convinced some people that it is somehow excusable to cover up evidence of the potentially harmful effects of vaccines on certain children in order to support "herd immunity." All of the above examples, along with the many other violations of natural law currently taking place, are enabled and excused by a variety of false realities or false narratives, created and maintained in order to lend an air of legitimacy to these violations. So were many other horrendous violations of natural law which were enabled by false narratives and illusions throughout history, including the enslavement of Africans which Spooner argued against in the 1850s, to the destruction of Native American tribes in the western US after the end of the US Civil War and the seizure of their lands and their confinement to reservations or "agencies," to the seizure of the Hawaiian Islands and the Philippines in the years after that, and on and on right up to the present. All of the above examples were enabled by lies, illusions, and false narratives or false realities. For more on breaking through illusions and false realities, and creating new realities, see for example this previous post entitled "Jon Rappoport's talk on the trickster-god and creating reality." It is one of Lysander Spooner's singular contributions that he perceived and forcefully argued that a criminal "law" is no law at all, and that men and women have the right and the duty to treat it as such, and to inform others of their right to do the same. Putting something on paper doesn't make it a "law" -- even if it has been adorned with all the necessary stamps and signatures. As Spooner alludes in the writings linked above, the US Constitution as originally designed, and especially the Bill of Rights as originally conceived, were designed to safeguard natural-law rights in many ways, and to the extent that Schoolhouse Rock taught those principles to a new generation in the 1970s, it can be commended. Perhaps Spooner's arguments about an illegal law being no law at all could not really be expected to be squeezed into the "I'm Just a Bill" song. But Lysander Spooner's arguments deserve to be brought into the modern era, in much the same way that the creators of Schoolhouse Rock tried to speak to the younger generation of the 1970s using the language and imagery of the 1970s. Spooner's arguments on behalf of the individual's rights under natural law -- rights which could never be abridged by any authority -- and his arguments against the creation of arbitrary "laws" which everyone has to obey just because a legislature or a president gave them the title of a "law" deserve examination, consideration, and thoughtful debate today more than ever. And the false narratives supporting so-called laws which supposedly authorize some people to use violence against others, or to threaten violence against others, or to take away the freedom of others when those others have not done anything to harm anyone else's persons or property, must be shown to be the form of mind control that they are. No individuals or groups can give themselves the right to violate natural law and in doing so to infringe on anyone else's rights, simply by writing something down on a "sad little scrap of paper."

<urn:uuid:17474726-e53e-48c9-a980-028439f26526>

CC-MAIN-2018-13

http://www.starmythworld.com/mathisencorollary/2014/09/does-writing-something-on-piece-of.html

s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2018-13/segments/1521257647892.89/warc/CC-MAIN-20180322151300-20180322171300-00710.warc.gz

en

<urn:uuid:17474726-e53e-48c9-a980-028439f26526>_45

In a passage labeled "Section IV" of his 1882 treatise on Natural Law, Spooner declares that the rights belonging to every human being by the unchangeable principle of justice "necessarily remain with him [or her] during life," and although these rights are "capable of being trampled upon" they are nevertheless "incapable of being blotted out, extinguished, annihilated, or separated from" each and every human being, and that there is no authority high enough to simply declare them null or void.

"Whew! You sure gotta climb a lot of steps to get to the Capitol Building here in Washington. Well I wonder who that sad little scrap of paper is?" And with those words began one of my childhood favorite Schoolhouse Rock videos, which used to be on television back in the early 1970s when I wasn't really old enough to have any idea what exactly they were all about, or why they would sometimes show up in between episodes of Superfriends, Speed Racer, or Sigmund and the Sea Monsters. In I'm just a bill," we witness the progress by which "that sad little scrap of paper" receives a fancy seal and a president's signature and becomes a law ("He signed ya, Bill: Now you're a Law!"). Although the video does an admirable job depicting some of the checks and balances contained in the US Constitution, through which the members of both houses of the legislature must agree to send the bill forward to the executive branch for final approval before any proposed bill is signed into law, it does tend to convey the impression that any "good idea" can be transformed into "a Law" through the magical process of being debated by important-looking men in impressive-looking buildings with lots of steps and Greek columns, on top of high hills (and filled with long rows of impassive US Marines in dress blue uniforms, and statues of distinguished statesmen from previous generations), signed by the president using a fountain pen, and affixed with a shiny-looking seal with a ribbon. Nineteenth-century abolitionist, legal scholar and philosopher Lysander Spooner (1808 - 1887) would vehemently disagree that something becomes "a law" just because it goes through the above process and receives a president's signature and a fancy stamp. In fact, he published a treatise in 1850 entitled A Defence for Fugitive Slaves against the Acts of Congress of February 12, 1793 and September 18, 1850, in which he argued that an illegal law is no law at all, and confers no obligation on anyone to obey it, nor any authority to anyone desiring to enforce it. He begins his treatise with the complete copy of each of the two acts in question, both of which were considered "law" in 1850, compelling men or women who knew of a "fugitive slave" to help catch that "fugitive slave" or face penalties including fines and imprisonment (the term "slave" is put in quotation marks here because Spooner argues that no person can ever own another person, and that there actually is no such thing as a legal slave or the legal condition of slavery, all so-called "laws" which make one person the property of another being illegal and criminal). Those two so-called laws (the Fugitive Slave Act of 1793 and the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850) were both signed by the presidents of their day, George Washington in the first instance and Millard Fillmore in the second (they also bear the signatures of the respective Speakers of the House and Presidents of the Senate). But these signatures do not make them true laws, according to Spooner's arguments. Spooner demonstrates that holding anyone else as property is a crime, and that putting something on paper, stamping it with fancy seals, embellishing it with fancy legal language, and endorsing it with the signatures of people bearing impressive titles does not make it into law: it's still just a "sad little scrap of paper" in his eyes. He even goes so far as to say that men and women have the right to resist illegal laws, in what is undoubtedly among the most important sections of his argument, found on pages 27 and 28. There, he powerfully dismantles the counter-arguments that he anticipates from those who would argue that once something is "a law," it must be obeyed until it is repealed. If it were really true that an illegal or unconstitutional law must be obeyed until repealed, he reasons, then "there would therefore be no difference at all between a constitutional and an unconstitutional law, in respect to their binding force; and that would be equivalent to abolishing the constitution, and giving to the government unlimited power" (28). Those who would disagree with Lysander Spooner on this point are invited to participate in a mental experiment, in which they imagine that the president has signed a law saying that if you in any way hinder the search for an escaped slave, or in any way assist a person who has been designated a "slave" and who has run away and is hiding from the authorities, then you yourself are a criminal and can be subject to enormous fines and imprisonment. Note that this is not just a hypothetical scenario: the first and the thirteenth presidents of the United States each signed such a proposition into "law." Today, nobody reading this blog would likely argue that they would feel a moral duty to obey such a "law," or that they would have to actually support it until such time as they could eventually get it repealed through the same arduous process depicted in the Schoolhouse Rock video shown above. Nearly every man or woman would agree with Spooner that the institution of slavery and "laws" enforcing one person's ability to "own" another are not laws but rather outrageous crimes, and would reject the notion that writing such a "law" down on a piece of paper, stamping it with a pretty seal and adding some flowery signatures suddenly turns it into something that must be willingly and voluntarily obeyed until it can be debated and eventually repealed. Writing something on a piece of paper does not make it a law. But, if this is true, then what does make something a law? Lysander Spooner argued that the actions of men and women cannot actually make anything a law, but that there is already an immutable or unchangeable universal law which he called "Natural Law" or the "Science of Justice." He believed that human society should only enforce natural law, and not dream up additional or "artificial" laws, and that trying to add to or subtract from the natural law is as foolish as trying to add to or subtract from other natural laws, such as the law of gravity. He argued that men and women could voluntarily band together to help ensure compliance with this natural law among their group, but that they could not compel others to join that voluntary association. Even within such a voluntary association, he believed that people or groups could only rightly compel compliance with the natural law, which was generally extremely simple and basically entailed the command to "live honestly, hurt no one, and give everyone his or her due." In an 1882 publication entitled Natural Law; or The Science of Justice, Spooner set out to explain the concept of natural law. In it, he made a distinction between those things that everyone has a legal duty to either do or to refrain from doing, and which others can and must compel in others, and those things which everyone has a moral duty to do but which must be left up to each person's own judgment and which no one has the right or duty to compel. Below is a table based upon Spooner's 1882 text, generally following the order and wording of his argument: The left column (labeled "Legal Duty" and highlighted in yellow), in Spooner's view, constitutes those things which are part of the natural law, and can actually be the only things which anyone can rightfully use force to uphold. He says that everyone has a duty to refrain from injuring others, and that force may and must be used when someone sees someone else in the act of injuring someone else. Spooner further argues in that 1882 text that nearly everyone understands these natural law prohibitions and duties before they are even old enough to know that "three and three are six, or five and five ten" (9). The right column (labeled "Moral Duty" and highlighted in green), in Spooner's view, constitutes those things which we do have a moral duty to perform, but which no one else can compel us to do: we must judge the extent to which we are able to do those things, and how we wish to best accomplish them when we do decide to do them. Thus, in Spooner's view, any so-called law that goes beyond the legal duties in the left column (or, worse yet, directly contradicts and violates those legal duties, as did the Fugitive Slave Acts) is actually no law at all and it can and must be disobeyed as illegal and criminal, regardless of whether it was written down on paper using legal-sounding language and passed by men and women in fancy buildings and stamped with fancy stamps and inscribed with fancy signatures. At this point, the reader may be thinking that all of this is very nice, but what on earth does it have to do with the general subject matter covered in this blog? The answer is: everything. Because, as insightful thinkers such as Mark Passio have articulated, violations of natural law are so contrary to our innate understanding of right and wrong (remember that Spooner says we know it before we even know that 3 + 3 = 6) that artificial laws which violate natural law must always be dressed up with various symbols and word-formulas designed to convey legitimacy, and reinforced by systems of mind control by which men and women who should know that those violations are immoral can somehow be made to believe that those violations of natural law are instead right and good and deserving of support. Institutionalized violations of natural law are nearly always accompanied by powerful forms of illusion, or the creation of "false realities" that enable those violations to appear legitimate, and to get people to go along with them. Therefore, seeing through these false realities is of absolutely primary importance. This blog primarily examines false realities which can be seen operating all around us, including in the realm of conventional history as taught in all the institutions of academia and reinforced by the organs of the conventional media (see for example "Piercing the fog of deception that hides the contours of history" and also the two short videos entitled "The importance of challenging false narratives"). These false realities or false narratives which cause people to accept gross violations of natural law are operating today with just as much force as they were operating in Spooner's day -- perhaps even more so. False narratives assist in getting people to accept the premise that so-called "laws" permitting government surveillance of individual men and women at virtually any time and place are legitimate (see here and here). This is a violation of natural law in that it enables hidden enforcers and observers to treat individuals as criminals on the suspicion that they might do something to harm others, elevating some to the status of "prison guards" and demoting everyone else to the status of prisoners under constant suspicion and surveillance. False narratives convince people to accept the idea that men and women can and should be locked up and denied their freedom for possessing certain plants or mushrooms known to induce a state of ecstasy. This is a violation of natural law in that it uses force to prohibit behavior that in no way harms the person or property of another or infringes on another's rights. False narratives convince people to accept the idea that men and women representing the government and wearing military gear and driving military vehicles can point military weapons at people assembling in the streets to express themselves, or at people in their homes in a neighborhood where fugitives are supposedly hiding. These are clear violations of natural law in that such actions basically declare that force can be used against citizens whenever it is convenient for the government to say there is a need to do so, an idea which Spooner eloquently demolishes in pages 27 and 28 of his text against the Fugitive Slave Acts. In a passage labeled "Section IV" of his 1882 treatise on Natural Law, Spooner declares that the rights belonging to every human being by the unchangeable principle of justice "necessarily remain with him [or her] during life," and although these rights are "capable of being trampled upon" they are nevertheless "incapable of being blotted out, extinguished, annihilated, or separated from" each and every human being, and that there is no authority high enough to simply declare them null or void. False narratives have even apparently convinced some people that it is somehow excusable to cover up evidence of the potentially harmful effects of vaccines on certain children in order to support "herd immunity." All of the above examples, along with the many other violations of natural law currently taking place, are enabled and excused by a variety of false realities or false narratives, created and maintained in order to lend an air of legitimacy to these violations. So were many other horrendous violations of natural law which were enabled by false narratives and illusions throughout history, including the enslavement of Africans which Spooner argued against in the 1850s, to the destruction of Native American tribes in the western US after the end of the US Civil War and the seizure of their lands and their confinement to reservations or "agencies," to the seizure of the Hawaiian Islands and the Philippines in the years after that, and on and on right up to the present. All of the above examples were enabled by lies, illusions, and false narratives or false realities. For more on breaking through illusions and false realities, and creating new realities, see for example this previous post entitled "Jon Rappoport's talk on the trickster-god and creating reality." It is one of Lysander Spooner's singular contributions that he perceived and forcefully argued that a criminal "law" is no law at all, and that men and women have the right and the duty to treat it as such, and to inform others of their right to do the same. Putting something on paper doesn't make it a "law" -- even if it has been adorned with all the necessary stamps and signatures. As Spooner alludes in the writings linked above, the US Constitution as originally designed, and especially the Bill of Rights as originally conceived, were designed to safeguard natural-law rights in many ways, and to the extent that Schoolhouse Rock taught those principles to a new generation in the 1970s, it can be commended. Perhaps Spooner's arguments about an illegal law being no law at all could not really be expected to be squeezed into the "I'm Just a Bill" song. But Lysander Spooner's arguments deserve to be brought into the modern era, in much the same way that the creators of Schoolhouse Rock tried to speak to the younger generation of the 1970s using the language and imagery of the 1970s. Spooner's arguments on behalf of the individual's rights under natural law -- rights which could never be abridged by any authority -- and his arguments against the creation of arbitrary "laws" which everyone has to obey just because a legislature or a president gave them the title of a "law" deserve examination, consideration, and thoughtful debate today more than ever. And the false narratives supporting so-called laws which supposedly authorize some people to use violence against others, or to threaten violence against others, or to take away the freedom of others when those others have not done anything to harm anyone else's persons or property, must be shown to be the form of mind control that they are. No individuals or groups can give themselves the right to violate natural law and in doing so to infringe on anyone else's rights, simply by writing something down on a "sad little scrap of paper."

<urn:uuid:17474726-e53e-48c9-a980-028439f26526>

CC-MAIN-2018-13

http://www.starmythworld.com/mathisencorollary/2014/09/does-writing-something-on-piece-of.html

s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2018-13/segments/1521257647892.89/warc/CC-MAIN-20180322151300-20180322171300-00710.warc.gz

en

<urn:uuid:17474726-e53e-48c9-a980-028439f26526>_46

False narratives have even apparently convinced some people that it is somehow excusable to cover up evidence of the potentially harmful effects of vaccines on certain children in order to support "herd immunity."

"Whew! You sure gotta climb a lot of steps to get to the Capitol Building here in Washington. Well I wonder who that sad little scrap of paper is?" And with those words began one of my childhood favorite Schoolhouse Rock videos, which used to be on television back in the early 1970s when I wasn't really old enough to have any idea what exactly they were all about, or why they would sometimes show up in between episodes of Superfriends, Speed Racer, or Sigmund and the Sea Monsters. In I'm just a bill," we witness the progress by which "that sad little scrap of paper" receives a fancy seal and a president's signature and becomes a law ("He signed ya, Bill: Now you're a Law!"). Although the video does an admirable job depicting some of the checks and balances contained in the US Constitution, through which the members of both houses of the legislature must agree to send the bill forward to the executive branch for final approval before any proposed bill is signed into law, it does tend to convey the impression that any "good idea" can be transformed into "a Law" through the magical process of being debated by important-looking men in impressive-looking buildings with lots of steps and Greek columns, on top of high hills (and filled with long rows of impassive US Marines in dress blue uniforms, and statues of distinguished statesmen from previous generations), signed by the president using a fountain pen, and affixed with a shiny-looking seal with a ribbon. Nineteenth-century abolitionist, legal scholar and philosopher Lysander Spooner (1808 - 1887) would vehemently disagree that something becomes "a law" just because it goes through the above process and receives a president's signature and a fancy stamp. In fact, he published a treatise in 1850 entitled A Defence for Fugitive Slaves against the Acts of Congress of February 12, 1793 and September 18, 1850, in which he argued that an illegal law is no law at all, and confers no obligation on anyone to obey it, nor any authority to anyone desiring to enforce it. He begins his treatise with the complete copy of each of the two acts in question, both of which were considered "law" in 1850, compelling men or women who knew of a "fugitive slave" to help catch that "fugitive slave" or face penalties including fines and imprisonment (the term "slave" is put in quotation marks here because Spooner argues that no person can ever own another person, and that there actually is no such thing as a legal slave or the legal condition of slavery, all so-called "laws" which make one person the property of another being illegal and criminal). Those two so-called laws (the Fugitive Slave Act of 1793 and the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850) were both signed by the presidents of their day, George Washington in the first instance and Millard Fillmore in the second (they also bear the signatures of the respective Speakers of the House and Presidents of the Senate). But these signatures do not make them true laws, according to Spooner's arguments. Spooner demonstrates that holding anyone else as property is a crime, and that putting something on paper, stamping it with fancy seals, embellishing it with fancy legal language, and endorsing it with the signatures of people bearing impressive titles does not make it into law: it's still just a "sad little scrap of paper" in his eyes. He even goes so far as to say that men and women have the right to resist illegal laws, in what is undoubtedly among the most important sections of his argument, found on pages 27 and 28. There, he powerfully dismantles the counter-arguments that he anticipates from those who would argue that once something is "a law," it must be obeyed until it is repealed. If it were really true that an illegal or unconstitutional law must be obeyed until repealed, he reasons, then "there would therefore be no difference at all between a constitutional and an unconstitutional law, in respect to their binding force; and that would be equivalent to abolishing the constitution, and giving to the government unlimited power" (28). Those who would disagree with Lysander Spooner on this point are invited to participate in a mental experiment, in which they imagine that the president has signed a law saying that if you in any way hinder the search for an escaped slave, or in any way assist a person who has been designated a "slave" and who has run away and is hiding from the authorities, then you yourself are a criminal and can be subject to enormous fines and imprisonment. Note that this is not just a hypothetical scenario: the first and the thirteenth presidents of the United States each signed such a proposition into "law." Today, nobody reading this blog would likely argue that they would feel a moral duty to obey such a "law," or that they would have to actually support it until such time as they could eventually get it repealed through the same arduous process depicted in the Schoolhouse Rock video shown above. Nearly every man or woman would agree with Spooner that the institution of slavery and "laws" enforcing one person's ability to "own" another are not laws but rather outrageous crimes, and would reject the notion that writing such a "law" down on a piece of paper, stamping it with a pretty seal and adding some flowery signatures suddenly turns it into something that must be willingly and voluntarily obeyed until it can be debated and eventually repealed. Writing something on a piece of paper does not make it a law. But, if this is true, then what does make something a law? Lysander Spooner argued that the actions of men and women cannot actually make anything a law, but that there is already an immutable or unchangeable universal law which he called "Natural Law" or the "Science of Justice." He believed that human society should only enforce natural law, and not dream up additional or "artificial" laws, and that trying to add to or subtract from the natural law is as foolish as trying to add to or subtract from other natural laws, such as the law of gravity. He argued that men and women could voluntarily band together to help ensure compliance with this natural law among their group, but that they could not compel others to join that voluntary association. Even within such a voluntary association, he believed that people or groups could only rightly compel compliance with the natural law, which was generally extremely simple and basically entailed the command to "live honestly, hurt no one, and give everyone his or her due." In an 1882 publication entitled Natural Law; or The Science of Justice, Spooner set out to explain the concept of natural law. In it, he made a distinction between those things that everyone has a legal duty to either do or to refrain from doing, and which others can and must compel in others, and those things which everyone has a moral duty to do but which must be left up to each person's own judgment and which no one has the right or duty to compel. Below is a table based upon Spooner's 1882 text, generally following the order and wording of his argument: The left column (labeled "Legal Duty" and highlighted in yellow), in Spooner's view, constitutes those things which are part of the natural law, and can actually be the only things which anyone can rightfully use force to uphold. He says that everyone has a duty to refrain from injuring others, and that force may and must be used when someone sees someone else in the act of injuring someone else. Spooner further argues in that 1882 text that nearly everyone understands these natural law prohibitions and duties before they are even old enough to know that "three and three are six, or five and five ten" (9). The right column (labeled "Moral Duty" and highlighted in green), in Spooner's view, constitutes those things which we do have a moral duty to perform, but which no one else can compel us to do: we must judge the extent to which we are able to do those things, and how we wish to best accomplish them when we do decide to do them. Thus, in Spooner's view, any so-called law that goes beyond the legal duties in the left column (or, worse yet, directly contradicts and violates those legal duties, as did the Fugitive Slave Acts) is actually no law at all and it can and must be disobeyed as illegal and criminal, regardless of whether it was written down on paper using legal-sounding language and passed by men and women in fancy buildings and stamped with fancy stamps and inscribed with fancy signatures. At this point, the reader may be thinking that all of this is very nice, but what on earth does it have to do with the general subject matter covered in this blog? The answer is: everything. Because, as insightful thinkers such as Mark Passio have articulated, violations of natural law are so contrary to our innate understanding of right and wrong (remember that Spooner says we know it before we even know that 3 + 3 = 6) that artificial laws which violate natural law must always be dressed up with various symbols and word-formulas designed to convey legitimacy, and reinforced by systems of mind control by which men and women who should know that those violations are immoral can somehow be made to believe that those violations of natural law are instead right and good and deserving of support. Institutionalized violations of natural law are nearly always accompanied by powerful forms of illusion, or the creation of "false realities" that enable those violations to appear legitimate, and to get people to go along with them. Therefore, seeing through these false realities is of absolutely primary importance. This blog primarily examines false realities which can be seen operating all around us, including in the realm of conventional history as taught in all the institutions of academia and reinforced by the organs of the conventional media (see for example "Piercing the fog of deception that hides the contours of history" and also the two short videos entitled "The importance of challenging false narratives"). These false realities or false narratives which cause people to accept gross violations of natural law are operating today with just as much force as they were operating in Spooner's day -- perhaps even more so. False narratives assist in getting people to accept the premise that so-called "laws" permitting government surveillance of individual men and women at virtually any time and place are legitimate (see here and here). This is a violation of natural law in that it enables hidden enforcers and observers to treat individuals as criminals on the suspicion that they might do something to harm others, elevating some to the status of "prison guards" and demoting everyone else to the status of prisoners under constant suspicion and surveillance. False narratives convince people to accept the idea that men and women can and should be locked up and denied their freedom for possessing certain plants or mushrooms known to induce a state of ecstasy. This is a violation of natural law in that it uses force to prohibit behavior that in no way harms the person or property of another or infringes on another's rights. False narratives convince people to accept the idea that men and women representing the government and wearing military gear and driving military vehicles can point military weapons at people assembling in the streets to express themselves, or at people in their homes in a neighborhood where fugitives are supposedly hiding. These are clear violations of natural law in that such actions basically declare that force can be used against citizens whenever it is convenient for the government to say there is a need to do so, an idea which Spooner eloquently demolishes in pages 27 and 28 of his text against the Fugitive Slave Acts. In a passage labeled "Section IV" of his 1882 treatise on Natural Law, Spooner declares that the rights belonging to every human being by the unchangeable principle of justice "necessarily remain with him [or her] during life," and although these rights are "capable of being trampled upon" they are nevertheless "incapable of being blotted out, extinguished, annihilated, or separated from" each and every human being, and that there is no authority high enough to simply declare them null or void. False narratives have even apparently convinced some people that it is somehow excusable to cover up evidence of the potentially harmful effects of vaccines on certain children in order to support "herd immunity." All of the above examples, along with the many other violations of natural law currently taking place, are enabled and excused by a variety of false realities or false narratives, created and maintained in order to lend an air of legitimacy to these violations. So were many other horrendous violations of natural law which were enabled by false narratives and illusions throughout history, including the enslavement of Africans which Spooner argued against in the 1850s, to the destruction of Native American tribes in the western US after the end of the US Civil War and the seizure of their lands and their confinement to reservations or "agencies," to the seizure of the Hawaiian Islands and the Philippines in the years after that, and on and on right up to the present. All of the above examples were enabled by lies, illusions, and false narratives or false realities. For more on breaking through illusions and false realities, and creating new realities, see for example this previous post entitled "Jon Rappoport's talk on the trickster-god and creating reality." It is one of Lysander Spooner's singular contributions that he perceived and forcefully argued that a criminal "law" is no law at all, and that men and women have the right and the duty to treat it as such, and to inform others of their right to do the same. Putting something on paper doesn't make it a "law" -- even if it has been adorned with all the necessary stamps and signatures. As Spooner alludes in the writings linked above, the US Constitution as originally designed, and especially the Bill of Rights as originally conceived, were designed to safeguard natural-law rights in many ways, and to the extent that Schoolhouse Rock taught those principles to a new generation in the 1970s, it can be commended. Perhaps Spooner's arguments about an illegal law being no law at all could not really be expected to be squeezed into the "I'm Just a Bill" song. But Lysander Spooner's arguments deserve to be brought into the modern era, in much the same way that the creators of Schoolhouse Rock tried to speak to the younger generation of the 1970s using the language and imagery of the 1970s. Spooner's arguments on behalf of the individual's rights under natural law -- rights which could never be abridged by any authority -- and his arguments against the creation of arbitrary "laws" which everyone has to obey just because a legislature or a president gave them the title of a "law" deserve examination, consideration, and thoughtful debate today more than ever. And the false narratives supporting so-called laws which supposedly authorize some people to use violence against others, or to threaten violence against others, or to take away the freedom of others when those others have not done anything to harm anyone else's persons or property, must be shown to be the form of mind control that they are. No individuals or groups can give themselves the right to violate natural law and in doing so to infringe on anyone else's rights, simply by writing something down on a "sad little scrap of paper."

<urn:uuid:17474726-e53e-48c9-a980-028439f26526>

CC-MAIN-2018-13

http://www.starmythworld.com/mathisencorollary/2014/09/does-writing-something-on-piece-of.html

s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2018-13/segments/1521257647892.89/warc/CC-MAIN-20180322151300-20180322171300-00710.warc.gz

en

<urn:uuid:17474726-e53e-48c9-a980-028439f26526>_47

All of the above examples, along with the many other violations of natural law currently taking place, are enabled and excused by a variety of false realities or false narratives, created and maintained in order to lend an air of legitimacy to these violations.

"Whew! You sure gotta climb a lot of steps to get to the Capitol Building here in Washington. Well I wonder who that sad little scrap of paper is?" And with those words began one of my childhood favorite Schoolhouse Rock videos, which used to be on television back in the early 1970s when I wasn't really old enough to have any idea what exactly they were all about, or why they would sometimes show up in between episodes of Superfriends, Speed Racer, or Sigmund and the Sea Monsters. In I'm just a bill," we witness the progress by which "that sad little scrap of paper" receives a fancy seal and a president's signature and becomes a law ("He signed ya, Bill: Now you're a Law!"). Although the video does an admirable job depicting some of the checks and balances contained in the US Constitution, through which the members of both houses of the legislature must agree to send the bill forward to the executive branch for final approval before any proposed bill is signed into law, it does tend to convey the impression that any "good idea" can be transformed into "a Law" through the magical process of being debated by important-looking men in impressive-looking buildings with lots of steps and Greek columns, on top of high hills (and filled with long rows of impassive US Marines in dress blue uniforms, and statues of distinguished statesmen from previous generations), signed by the president using a fountain pen, and affixed with a shiny-looking seal with a ribbon. Nineteenth-century abolitionist, legal scholar and philosopher Lysander Spooner (1808 - 1887) would vehemently disagree that something becomes "a law" just because it goes through the above process and receives a president's signature and a fancy stamp. In fact, he published a treatise in 1850 entitled A Defence for Fugitive Slaves against the Acts of Congress of February 12, 1793 and September 18, 1850, in which he argued that an illegal law is no law at all, and confers no obligation on anyone to obey it, nor any authority to anyone desiring to enforce it. He begins his treatise with the complete copy of each of the two acts in question, both of which were considered "law" in 1850, compelling men or women who knew of a "fugitive slave" to help catch that "fugitive slave" or face penalties including fines and imprisonment (the term "slave" is put in quotation marks here because Spooner argues that no person can ever own another person, and that there actually is no such thing as a legal slave or the legal condition of slavery, all so-called "laws" which make one person the property of another being illegal and criminal). Those two so-called laws (the Fugitive Slave Act of 1793 and the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850) were both signed by the presidents of their day, George Washington in the first instance and Millard Fillmore in the second (they also bear the signatures of the respective Speakers of the House and Presidents of the Senate). But these signatures do not make them true laws, according to Spooner's arguments. Spooner demonstrates that holding anyone else as property is a crime, and that putting something on paper, stamping it with fancy seals, embellishing it with fancy legal language, and endorsing it with the signatures of people bearing impressive titles does not make it into law: it's still just a "sad little scrap of paper" in his eyes. He even goes so far as to say that men and women have the right to resist illegal laws, in what is undoubtedly among the most important sections of his argument, found on pages 27 and 28. There, he powerfully dismantles the counter-arguments that he anticipates from those who would argue that once something is "a law," it must be obeyed until it is repealed. If it were really true that an illegal or unconstitutional law must be obeyed until repealed, he reasons, then "there would therefore be no difference at all between a constitutional and an unconstitutional law, in respect to their binding force; and that would be equivalent to abolishing the constitution, and giving to the government unlimited power" (28). Those who would disagree with Lysander Spooner on this point are invited to participate in a mental experiment, in which they imagine that the president has signed a law saying that if you in any way hinder the search for an escaped slave, or in any way assist a person who has been designated a "slave" and who has run away and is hiding from the authorities, then you yourself are a criminal and can be subject to enormous fines and imprisonment. Note that this is not just a hypothetical scenario: the first and the thirteenth presidents of the United States each signed such a proposition into "law." Today, nobody reading this blog would likely argue that they would feel a moral duty to obey such a "law," or that they would have to actually support it until such time as they could eventually get it repealed through the same arduous process depicted in the Schoolhouse Rock video shown above. Nearly every man or woman would agree with Spooner that the institution of slavery and "laws" enforcing one person's ability to "own" another are not laws but rather outrageous crimes, and would reject the notion that writing such a "law" down on a piece of paper, stamping it with a pretty seal and adding some flowery signatures suddenly turns it into something that must be willingly and voluntarily obeyed until it can be debated and eventually repealed. Writing something on a piece of paper does not make it a law. But, if this is true, then what does make something a law? Lysander Spooner argued that the actions of men and women cannot actually make anything a law, but that there is already an immutable or unchangeable universal law which he called "Natural Law" or the "Science of Justice." He believed that human society should only enforce natural law, and not dream up additional or "artificial" laws, and that trying to add to or subtract from the natural law is as foolish as trying to add to or subtract from other natural laws, such as the law of gravity. He argued that men and women could voluntarily band together to help ensure compliance with this natural law among their group, but that they could not compel others to join that voluntary association. Even within such a voluntary association, he believed that people or groups could only rightly compel compliance with the natural law, which was generally extremely simple and basically entailed the command to "live honestly, hurt no one, and give everyone his or her due." In an 1882 publication entitled Natural Law; or The Science of Justice, Spooner set out to explain the concept of natural law. In it, he made a distinction between those things that everyone has a legal duty to either do or to refrain from doing, and which others can and must compel in others, and those things which everyone has a moral duty to do but which must be left up to each person's own judgment and which no one has the right or duty to compel. Below is a table based upon Spooner's 1882 text, generally following the order and wording of his argument: The left column (labeled "Legal Duty" and highlighted in yellow), in Spooner's view, constitutes those things which are part of the natural law, and can actually be the only things which anyone can rightfully use force to uphold. He says that everyone has a duty to refrain from injuring others, and that force may and must be used when someone sees someone else in the act of injuring someone else. Spooner further argues in that 1882 text that nearly everyone understands these natural law prohibitions and duties before they are even old enough to know that "three and three are six, or five and five ten" (9). The right column (labeled "Moral Duty" and highlighted in green), in Spooner's view, constitutes those things which we do have a moral duty to perform, but which no one else can compel us to do: we must judge the extent to which we are able to do those things, and how we wish to best accomplish them when we do decide to do them. Thus, in Spooner's view, any so-called law that goes beyond the legal duties in the left column (or, worse yet, directly contradicts and violates those legal duties, as did the Fugitive Slave Acts) is actually no law at all and it can and must be disobeyed as illegal and criminal, regardless of whether it was written down on paper using legal-sounding language and passed by men and women in fancy buildings and stamped with fancy stamps and inscribed with fancy signatures. At this point, the reader may be thinking that all of this is very nice, but what on earth does it have to do with the general subject matter covered in this blog? The answer is: everything. Because, as insightful thinkers such as Mark Passio have articulated, violations of natural law are so contrary to our innate understanding of right and wrong (remember that Spooner says we know it before we even know that 3 + 3 = 6) that artificial laws which violate natural law must always be dressed up with various symbols and word-formulas designed to convey legitimacy, and reinforced by systems of mind control by which men and women who should know that those violations are immoral can somehow be made to believe that those violations of natural law are instead right and good and deserving of support. Institutionalized violations of natural law are nearly always accompanied by powerful forms of illusion, or the creation of "false realities" that enable those violations to appear legitimate, and to get people to go along with them. Therefore, seeing through these false realities is of absolutely primary importance. This blog primarily examines false realities which can be seen operating all around us, including in the realm of conventional history as taught in all the institutions of academia and reinforced by the organs of the conventional media (see for example "Piercing the fog of deception that hides the contours of history" and also the two short videos entitled "The importance of challenging false narratives"). These false realities or false narratives which cause people to accept gross violations of natural law are operating today with just as much force as they were operating in Spooner's day -- perhaps even more so. False narratives assist in getting people to accept the premise that so-called "laws" permitting government surveillance of individual men and women at virtually any time and place are legitimate (see here and here). This is a violation of natural law in that it enables hidden enforcers and observers to treat individuals as criminals on the suspicion that they might do something to harm others, elevating some to the status of "prison guards" and demoting everyone else to the status of prisoners under constant suspicion and surveillance. False narratives convince people to accept the idea that men and women can and should be locked up and denied their freedom for possessing certain plants or mushrooms known to induce a state of ecstasy. This is a violation of natural law in that it uses force to prohibit behavior that in no way harms the person or property of another or infringes on another's rights. False narratives convince people to accept the idea that men and women representing the government and wearing military gear and driving military vehicles can point military weapons at people assembling in the streets to express themselves, or at people in their homes in a neighborhood where fugitives are supposedly hiding. These are clear violations of natural law in that such actions basically declare that force can be used against citizens whenever it is convenient for the government to say there is a need to do so, an idea which Spooner eloquently demolishes in pages 27 and 28 of his text against the Fugitive Slave Acts. In a passage labeled "Section IV" of his 1882 treatise on Natural Law, Spooner declares that the rights belonging to every human being by the unchangeable principle of justice "necessarily remain with him [or her] during life," and although these rights are "capable of being trampled upon" they are nevertheless "incapable of being blotted out, extinguished, annihilated, or separated from" each and every human being, and that there is no authority high enough to simply declare them null or void. False narratives have even apparently convinced some people that it is somehow excusable to cover up evidence of the potentially harmful effects of vaccines on certain children in order to support "herd immunity." All of the above examples, along with the many other violations of natural law currently taking place, are enabled and excused by a variety of false realities or false narratives, created and maintained in order to lend an air of legitimacy to these violations. So were many other horrendous violations of natural law which were enabled by false narratives and illusions throughout history, including the enslavement of Africans which Spooner argued against in the 1850s, to the destruction of Native American tribes in the western US after the end of the US Civil War and the seizure of their lands and their confinement to reservations or "agencies," to the seizure of the Hawaiian Islands and the Philippines in the years after that, and on and on right up to the present. All of the above examples were enabled by lies, illusions, and false narratives or false realities. For more on breaking through illusions and false realities, and creating new realities, see for example this previous post entitled "Jon Rappoport's talk on the trickster-god and creating reality." It is one of Lysander Spooner's singular contributions that he perceived and forcefully argued that a criminal "law" is no law at all, and that men and women have the right and the duty to treat it as such, and to inform others of their right to do the same. Putting something on paper doesn't make it a "law" -- even if it has been adorned with all the necessary stamps and signatures. As Spooner alludes in the writings linked above, the US Constitution as originally designed, and especially the Bill of Rights as originally conceived, were designed to safeguard natural-law rights in many ways, and to the extent that Schoolhouse Rock taught those principles to a new generation in the 1970s, it can be commended. Perhaps Spooner's arguments about an illegal law being no law at all could not really be expected to be squeezed into the "I'm Just a Bill" song. But Lysander Spooner's arguments deserve to be brought into the modern era, in much the same way that the creators of Schoolhouse Rock tried to speak to the younger generation of the 1970s using the language and imagery of the 1970s. Spooner's arguments on behalf of the individual's rights under natural law -- rights which could never be abridged by any authority -- and his arguments against the creation of arbitrary "laws" which everyone has to obey just because a legislature or a president gave them the title of a "law" deserve examination, consideration, and thoughtful debate today more than ever. And the false narratives supporting so-called laws which supposedly authorize some people to use violence against others, or to threaten violence against others, or to take away the freedom of others when those others have not done anything to harm anyone else's persons or property, must be shown to be the form of mind control that they are. No individuals or groups can give themselves the right to violate natural law and in doing so to infringe on anyone else's rights, simply by writing something down on a "sad little scrap of paper."

<urn:uuid:17474726-e53e-48c9-a980-028439f26526>

CC-MAIN-2018-13

http://www.starmythworld.com/mathisencorollary/2014/09/does-writing-something-on-piece-of.html

s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2018-13/segments/1521257647892.89/warc/CC-MAIN-20180322151300-20180322171300-00710.warc.gz

en

<urn:uuid:17474726-e53e-48c9-a980-028439f26526>_49

All of the above examples were enabled by lies, illusions, and false narratives or false realities.

"Whew! You sure gotta climb a lot of steps to get to the Capitol Building here in Washington. Well I wonder who that sad little scrap of paper is?" And with those words began one of my childhood favorite Schoolhouse Rock videos, which used to be on television back in the early 1970s when I wasn't really old enough to have any idea what exactly they were all about, or why they would sometimes show up in between episodes of Superfriends, Speed Racer, or Sigmund and the Sea Monsters. In I'm just a bill," we witness the progress by which "that sad little scrap of paper" receives a fancy seal and a president's signature and becomes a law ("He signed ya, Bill: Now you're a Law!"). Although the video does an admirable job depicting some of the checks and balances contained in the US Constitution, through which the members of both houses of the legislature must agree to send the bill forward to the executive branch for final approval before any proposed bill is signed into law, it does tend to convey the impression that any "good idea" can be transformed into "a Law" through the magical process of being debated by important-looking men in impressive-looking buildings with lots of steps and Greek columns, on top of high hills (and filled with long rows of impassive US Marines in dress blue uniforms, and statues of distinguished statesmen from previous generations), signed by the president using a fountain pen, and affixed with a shiny-looking seal with a ribbon. Nineteenth-century abolitionist, legal scholar and philosopher Lysander Spooner (1808 - 1887) would vehemently disagree that something becomes "a law" just because it goes through the above process and receives a president's signature and a fancy stamp. In fact, he published a treatise in 1850 entitled A Defence for Fugitive Slaves against the Acts of Congress of February 12, 1793 and September 18, 1850, in which he argued that an illegal law is no law at all, and confers no obligation on anyone to obey it, nor any authority to anyone desiring to enforce it. He begins his treatise with the complete copy of each of the two acts in question, both of which were considered "law" in 1850, compelling men or women who knew of a "fugitive slave" to help catch that "fugitive slave" or face penalties including fines and imprisonment (the term "slave" is put in quotation marks here because Spooner argues that no person can ever own another person, and that there actually is no such thing as a legal slave or the legal condition of slavery, all so-called "laws" which make one person the property of another being illegal and criminal). Those two so-called laws (the Fugitive Slave Act of 1793 and the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850) were both signed by the presidents of their day, George Washington in the first instance and Millard Fillmore in the second (they also bear the signatures of the respective Speakers of the House and Presidents of the Senate). But these signatures do not make them true laws, according to Spooner's arguments. Spooner demonstrates that holding anyone else as property is a crime, and that putting something on paper, stamping it with fancy seals, embellishing it with fancy legal language, and endorsing it with the signatures of people bearing impressive titles does not make it into law: it's still just a "sad little scrap of paper" in his eyes. He even goes so far as to say that men and women have the right to resist illegal laws, in what is undoubtedly among the most important sections of his argument, found on pages 27 and 28. There, he powerfully dismantles the counter-arguments that he anticipates from those who would argue that once something is "a law," it must be obeyed until it is repealed. If it were really true that an illegal or unconstitutional law must be obeyed until repealed, he reasons, then "there would therefore be no difference at all between a constitutional and an unconstitutional law, in respect to their binding force; and that would be equivalent to abolishing the constitution, and giving to the government unlimited power" (28). Those who would disagree with Lysander Spooner on this point are invited to participate in a mental experiment, in which they imagine that the president has signed a law saying that if you in any way hinder the search for an escaped slave, or in any way assist a person who has been designated a "slave" and who has run away and is hiding from the authorities, then you yourself are a criminal and can be subject to enormous fines and imprisonment. Note that this is not just a hypothetical scenario: the first and the thirteenth presidents of the United States each signed such a proposition into "law." Today, nobody reading this blog would likely argue that they would feel a moral duty to obey such a "law," or that they would have to actually support it until such time as they could eventually get it repealed through the same arduous process depicted in the Schoolhouse Rock video shown above. Nearly every man or woman would agree with Spooner that the institution of slavery and "laws" enforcing one person's ability to "own" another are not laws but rather outrageous crimes, and would reject the notion that writing such a "law" down on a piece of paper, stamping it with a pretty seal and adding some flowery signatures suddenly turns it into something that must be willingly and voluntarily obeyed until it can be debated and eventually repealed. Writing something on a piece of paper does not make it a law. But, if this is true, then what does make something a law? Lysander Spooner argued that the actions of men and women cannot actually make anything a law, but that there is already an immutable or unchangeable universal law which he called "Natural Law" or the "Science of Justice." He believed that human society should only enforce natural law, and not dream up additional or "artificial" laws, and that trying to add to or subtract from the natural law is as foolish as trying to add to or subtract from other natural laws, such as the law of gravity. He argued that men and women could voluntarily band together to help ensure compliance with this natural law among their group, but that they could not compel others to join that voluntary association. Even within such a voluntary association, he believed that people or groups could only rightly compel compliance with the natural law, which was generally extremely simple and basically entailed the command to "live honestly, hurt no one, and give everyone his or her due." In an 1882 publication entitled Natural Law; or The Science of Justice, Spooner set out to explain the concept of natural law. In it, he made a distinction between those things that everyone has a legal duty to either do or to refrain from doing, and which others can and must compel in others, and those things which everyone has a moral duty to do but which must be left up to each person's own judgment and which no one has the right or duty to compel. Below is a table based upon Spooner's 1882 text, generally following the order and wording of his argument: The left column (labeled "Legal Duty" and highlighted in yellow), in Spooner's view, constitutes those things which are part of the natural law, and can actually be the only things which anyone can rightfully use force to uphold. He says that everyone has a duty to refrain from injuring others, and that force may and must be used when someone sees someone else in the act of injuring someone else. Spooner further argues in that 1882 text that nearly everyone understands these natural law prohibitions and duties before they are even old enough to know that "three and three are six, or five and five ten" (9). The right column (labeled "Moral Duty" and highlighted in green), in Spooner's view, constitutes those things which we do have a moral duty to perform, but which no one else can compel us to do: we must judge the extent to which we are able to do those things, and how we wish to best accomplish them when we do decide to do them. Thus, in Spooner's view, any so-called law that goes beyond the legal duties in the left column (or, worse yet, directly contradicts and violates those legal duties, as did the Fugitive Slave Acts) is actually no law at all and it can and must be disobeyed as illegal and criminal, regardless of whether it was written down on paper using legal-sounding language and passed by men and women in fancy buildings and stamped with fancy stamps and inscribed with fancy signatures. At this point, the reader may be thinking that all of this is very nice, but what on earth does it have to do with the general subject matter covered in this blog? The answer is: everything. Because, as insightful thinkers such as Mark Passio have articulated, violations of natural law are so contrary to our innate understanding of right and wrong (remember that Spooner says we know it before we even know that 3 + 3 = 6) that artificial laws which violate natural law must always be dressed up with various symbols and word-formulas designed to convey legitimacy, and reinforced by systems of mind control by which men and women who should know that those violations are immoral can somehow be made to believe that those violations of natural law are instead right and good and deserving of support. Institutionalized violations of natural law are nearly always accompanied by powerful forms of illusion, or the creation of "false realities" that enable those violations to appear legitimate, and to get people to go along with them. Therefore, seeing through these false realities is of absolutely primary importance. This blog primarily examines false realities which can be seen operating all around us, including in the realm of conventional history as taught in all the institutions of academia and reinforced by the organs of the conventional media (see for example "Piercing the fog of deception that hides the contours of history" and also the two short videos entitled "The importance of challenging false narratives"). These false realities or false narratives which cause people to accept gross violations of natural law are operating today with just as much force as they were operating in Spooner's day -- perhaps even more so. False narratives assist in getting people to accept the premise that so-called "laws" permitting government surveillance of individual men and women at virtually any time and place are legitimate (see here and here). This is a violation of natural law in that it enables hidden enforcers and observers to treat individuals as criminals on the suspicion that they might do something to harm others, elevating some to the status of "prison guards" and demoting everyone else to the status of prisoners under constant suspicion and surveillance. False narratives convince people to accept the idea that men and women can and should be locked up and denied their freedom for possessing certain plants or mushrooms known to induce a state of ecstasy. This is a violation of natural law in that it uses force to prohibit behavior that in no way harms the person or property of another or infringes on another's rights. False narratives convince people to accept the idea that men and women representing the government and wearing military gear and driving military vehicles can point military weapons at people assembling in the streets to express themselves, or at people in their homes in a neighborhood where fugitives are supposedly hiding. These are clear violations of natural law in that such actions basically declare that force can be used against citizens whenever it is convenient for the government to say there is a need to do so, an idea which Spooner eloquently demolishes in pages 27 and 28 of his text against the Fugitive Slave Acts. In a passage labeled "Section IV" of his 1882 treatise on Natural Law, Spooner declares that the rights belonging to every human being by the unchangeable principle of justice "necessarily remain with him [or her] during life," and although these rights are "capable of being trampled upon" they are nevertheless "incapable of being blotted out, extinguished, annihilated, or separated from" each and every human being, and that there is no authority high enough to simply declare them null or void. False narratives have even apparently convinced some people that it is somehow excusable to cover up evidence of the potentially harmful effects of vaccines on certain children in order to support "herd immunity." All of the above examples, along with the many other violations of natural law currently taking place, are enabled and excused by a variety of false realities or false narratives, created and maintained in order to lend an air of legitimacy to these violations. So were many other horrendous violations of natural law which were enabled by false narratives and illusions throughout history, including the enslavement of Africans which Spooner argued against in the 1850s, to the destruction of Native American tribes in the western US after the end of the US Civil War and the seizure of their lands and their confinement to reservations or "agencies," to the seizure of the Hawaiian Islands and the Philippines in the years after that, and on and on right up to the present. All of the above examples were enabled by lies, illusions, and false narratives or false realities. For more on breaking through illusions and false realities, and creating new realities, see for example this previous post entitled "Jon Rappoport's talk on the trickster-god and creating reality." It is one of Lysander Spooner's singular contributions that he perceived and forcefully argued that a criminal "law" is no law at all, and that men and women have the right and the duty to treat it as such, and to inform others of their right to do the same. Putting something on paper doesn't make it a "law" -- even if it has been adorned with all the necessary stamps and signatures. As Spooner alludes in the writings linked above, the US Constitution as originally designed, and especially the Bill of Rights as originally conceived, were designed to safeguard natural-law rights in many ways, and to the extent that Schoolhouse Rock taught those principles to a new generation in the 1970s, it can be commended. Perhaps Spooner's arguments about an illegal law being no law at all could not really be expected to be squeezed into the "I'm Just a Bill" song. But Lysander Spooner's arguments deserve to be brought into the modern era, in much the same way that the creators of Schoolhouse Rock tried to speak to the younger generation of the 1970s using the language and imagery of the 1970s. Spooner's arguments on behalf of the individual's rights under natural law -- rights which could never be abridged by any authority -- and his arguments against the creation of arbitrary "laws" which everyone has to obey just because a legislature or a president gave them the title of a "law" deserve examination, consideration, and thoughtful debate today more than ever. And the false narratives supporting so-called laws which supposedly authorize some people to use violence against others, or to threaten violence against others, or to take away the freedom of others when those others have not done anything to harm anyone else's persons or property, must be shown to be the form of mind control that they are. No individuals or groups can give themselves the right to violate natural law and in doing so to infringe on anyone else's rights, simply by writing something down on a "sad little scrap of paper."

<urn:uuid:17474726-e53e-48c9-a980-028439f26526>

CC-MAIN-2018-13

http://www.starmythworld.com/mathisencorollary/2014/09/does-writing-something-on-piece-of.html

s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2018-13/segments/1521257647892.89/warc/CC-MAIN-20180322151300-20180322171300-00710.warc.gz

en

<urn:uuid:17474726-e53e-48c9-a980-028439f26526>_50

For more on breaking through illusions and false realities, and creating new realities, see for example this previous post entitled "Jon Rappoport's talk on the trickster-god and creating reality."

"Whew! You sure gotta climb a lot of steps to get to the Capitol Building here in Washington. Well I wonder who that sad little scrap of paper is?" And with those words began one of my childhood favorite Schoolhouse Rock videos, which used to be on television back in the early 1970s when I wasn't really old enough to have any idea what exactly they were all about, or why they would sometimes show up in between episodes of Superfriends, Speed Racer, or Sigmund and the Sea Monsters. In I'm just a bill," we witness the progress by which "that sad little scrap of paper" receives a fancy seal and a president's signature and becomes a law ("He signed ya, Bill: Now you're a Law!"). Although the video does an admirable job depicting some of the checks and balances contained in the US Constitution, through which the members of both houses of the legislature must agree to send the bill forward to the executive branch for final approval before any proposed bill is signed into law, it does tend to convey the impression that any "good idea" can be transformed into "a Law" through the magical process of being debated by important-looking men in impressive-looking buildings with lots of steps and Greek columns, on top of high hills (and filled with long rows of impassive US Marines in dress blue uniforms, and statues of distinguished statesmen from previous generations), signed by the president using a fountain pen, and affixed with a shiny-looking seal with a ribbon. Nineteenth-century abolitionist, legal scholar and philosopher Lysander Spooner (1808 - 1887) would vehemently disagree that something becomes "a law" just because it goes through the above process and receives a president's signature and a fancy stamp. In fact, he published a treatise in 1850 entitled A Defence for Fugitive Slaves against the Acts of Congress of February 12, 1793 and September 18, 1850, in which he argued that an illegal law is no law at all, and confers no obligation on anyone to obey it, nor any authority to anyone desiring to enforce it. He begins his treatise with the complete copy of each of the two acts in question, both of which were considered "law" in 1850, compelling men or women who knew of a "fugitive slave" to help catch that "fugitive slave" or face penalties including fines and imprisonment (the term "slave" is put in quotation marks here because Spooner argues that no person can ever own another person, and that there actually is no such thing as a legal slave or the legal condition of slavery, all so-called "laws" which make one person the property of another being illegal and criminal). Those two so-called laws (the Fugitive Slave Act of 1793 and the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850) were both signed by the presidents of their day, George Washington in the first instance and Millard Fillmore in the second (they also bear the signatures of the respective Speakers of the House and Presidents of the Senate). But these signatures do not make them true laws, according to Spooner's arguments. Spooner demonstrates that holding anyone else as property is a crime, and that putting something on paper, stamping it with fancy seals, embellishing it with fancy legal language, and endorsing it with the signatures of people bearing impressive titles does not make it into law: it's still just a "sad little scrap of paper" in his eyes. He even goes so far as to say that men and women have the right to resist illegal laws, in what is undoubtedly among the most important sections of his argument, found on pages 27 and 28. There, he powerfully dismantles the counter-arguments that he anticipates from those who would argue that once something is "a law," it must be obeyed until it is repealed. If it were really true that an illegal or unconstitutional law must be obeyed until repealed, he reasons, then "there would therefore be no difference at all between a constitutional and an unconstitutional law, in respect to their binding force; and that would be equivalent to abolishing the constitution, and giving to the government unlimited power" (28). Those who would disagree with Lysander Spooner on this point are invited to participate in a mental experiment, in which they imagine that the president has signed a law saying that if you in any way hinder the search for an escaped slave, or in any way assist a person who has been designated a "slave" and who has run away and is hiding from the authorities, then you yourself are a criminal and can be subject to enormous fines and imprisonment. Note that this is not just a hypothetical scenario: the first and the thirteenth presidents of the United States each signed such a proposition into "law." Today, nobody reading this blog would likely argue that they would feel a moral duty to obey such a "law," or that they would have to actually support it until such time as they could eventually get it repealed through the same arduous process depicted in the Schoolhouse Rock video shown above. Nearly every man or woman would agree with Spooner that the institution of slavery and "laws" enforcing one person's ability to "own" another are not laws but rather outrageous crimes, and would reject the notion that writing such a "law" down on a piece of paper, stamping it with a pretty seal and adding some flowery signatures suddenly turns it into something that must be willingly and voluntarily obeyed until it can be debated and eventually repealed. Writing something on a piece of paper does not make it a law. But, if this is true, then what does make something a law? Lysander Spooner argued that the actions of men and women cannot actually make anything a law, but that there is already an immutable or unchangeable universal law which he called "Natural Law" or the "Science of Justice." He believed that human society should only enforce natural law, and not dream up additional or "artificial" laws, and that trying to add to or subtract from the natural law is as foolish as trying to add to or subtract from other natural laws, such as the law of gravity. He argued that men and women could voluntarily band together to help ensure compliance with this natural law among their group, but that they could not compel others to join that voluntary association. Even within such a voluntary association, he believed that people or groups could only rightly compel compliance with the natural law, which was generally extremely simple and basically entailed the command to "live honestly, hurt no one, and give everyone his or her due." In an 1882 publication entitled Natural Law; or The Science of Justice, Spooner set out to explain the concept of natural law. In it, he made a distinction between those things that everyone has a legal duty to either do or to refrain from doing, and which others can and must compel in others, and those things which everyone has a moral duty to do but which must be left up to each person's own judgment and which no one has the right or duty to compel. Below is a table based upon Spooner's 1882 text, generally following the order and wording of his argument: The left column (labeled "Legal Duty" and highlighted in yellow), in Spooner's view, constitutes those things which are part of the natural law, and can actually be the only things which anyone can rightfully use force to uphold. He says that everyone has a duty to refrain from injuring others, and that force may and must be used when someone sees someone else in the act of injuring someone else. Spooner further argues in that 1882 text that nearly everyone understands these natural law prohibitions and duties before they are even old enough to know that "three and three are six, or five and five ten" (9). The right column (labeled "Moral Duty" and highlighted in green), in Spooner's view, constitutes those things which we do have a moral duty to perform, but which no one else can compel us to do: we must judge the extent to which we are able to do those things, and how we wish to best accomplish them when we do decide to do them. Thus, in Spooner's view, any so-called law that goes beyond the legal duties in the left column (or, worse yet, directly contradicts and violates those legal duties, as did the Fugitive Slave Acts) is actually no law at all and it can and must be disobeyed as illegal and criminal, regardless of whether it was written down on paper using legal-sounding language and passed by men and women in fancy buildings and stamped with fancy stamps and inscribed with fancy signatures. At this point, the reader may be thinking that all of this is very nice, but what on earth does it have to do with the general subject matter covered in this blog? The answer is: everything. Because, as insightful thinkers such as Mark Passio have articulated, violations of natural law are so contrary to our innate understanding of right and wrong (remember that Spooner says we know it before we even know that 3 + 3 = 6) that artificial laws which violate natural law must always be dressed up with various symbols and word-formulas designed to convey legitimacy, and reinforced by systems of mind control by which men and women who should know that those violations are immoral can somehow be made to believe that those violations of natural law are instead right and good and deserving of support. Institutionalized violations of natural law are nearly always accompanied by powerful forms of illusion, or the creation of "false realities" that enable those violations to appear legitimate, and to get people to go along with them. Therefore, seeing through these false realities is of absolutely primary importance. This blog primarily examines false realities which can be seen operating all around us, including in the realm of conventional history as taught in all the institutions of academia and reinforced by the organs of the conventional media (see for example "Piercing the fog of deception that hides the contours of history" and also the two short videos entitled "The importance of challenging false narratives"). These false realities or false narratives which cause people to accept gross violations of natural law are operating today with just as much force as they were operating in Spooner's day -- perhaps even more so. False narratives assist in getting people to accept the premise that so-called "laws" permitting government surveillance of individual men and women at virtually any time and place are legitimate (see here and here). This is a violation of natural law in that it enables hidden enforcers and observers to treat individuals as criminals on the suspicion that they might do something to harm others, elevating some to the status of "prison guards" and demoting everyone else to the status of prisoners under constant suspicion and surveillance. False narratives convince people to accept the idea that men and women can and should be locked up and denied their freedom for possessing certain plants or mushrooms known to induce a state of ecstasy. This is a violation of natural law in that it uses force to prohibit behavior that in no way harms the person or property of another or infringes on another's rights. False narratives convince people to accept the idea that men and women representing the government and wearing military gear and driving military vehicles can point military weapons at people assembling in the streets to express themselves, or at people in their homes in a neighborhood where fugitives are supposedly hiding. These are clear violations of natural law in that such actions basically declare that force can be used against citizens whenever it is convenient for the government to say there is a need to do so, an idea which Spooner eloquently demolishes in pages 27 and 28 of his text against the Fugitive Slave Acts. In a passage labeled "Section IV" of his 1882 treatise on Natural Law, Spooner declares that the rights belonging to every human being by the unchangeable principle of justice "necessarily remain with him [or her] during life," and although these rights are "capable of being trampled upon" they are nevertheless "incapable of being blotted out, extinguished, annihilated, or separated from" each and every human being, and that there is no authority high enough to simply declare them null or void. False narratives have even apparently convinced some people that it is somehow excusable to cover up evidence of the potentially harmful effects of vaccines on certain children in order to support "herd immunity." All of the above examples, along with the many other violations of natural law currently taking place, are enabled and excused by a variety of false realities or false narratives, created and maintained in order to lend an air of legitimacy to these violations. So were many other horrendous violations of natural law which were enabled by false narratives and illusions throughout history, including the enslavement of Africans which Spooner argued against in the 1850s, to the destruction of Native American tribes in the western US after the end of the US Civil War and the seizure of their lands and their confinement to reservations or "agencies," to the seizure of the Hawaiian Islands and the Philippines in the years after that, and on and on right up to the present. All of the above examples were enabled by lies, illusions, and false narratives or false realities. For more on breaking through illusions and false realities, and creating new realities, see for example this previous post entitled "Jon Rappoport's talk on the trickster-god and creating reality." It is one of Lysander Spooner's singular contributions that he perceived and forcefully argued that a criminal "law" is no law at all, and that men and women have the right and the duty to treat it as such, and to inform others of their right to do the same. Putting something on paper doesn't make it a "law" -- even if it has been adorned with all the necessary stamps and signatures. As Spooner alludes in the writings linked above, the US Constitution as originally designed, and especially the Bill of Rights as originally conceived, were designed to safeguard natural-law rights in many ways, and to the extent that Schoolhouse Rock taught those principles to a new generation in the 1970s, it can be commended. Perhaps Spooner's arguments about an illegal law being no law at all could not really be expected to be squeezed into the "I'm Just a Bill" song. But Lysander Spooner's arguments deserve to be brought into the modern era, in much the same way that the creators of Schoolhouse Rock tried to speak to the younger generation of the 1970s using the language and imagery of the 1970s. Spooner's arguments on behalf of the individual's rights under natural law -- rights which could never be abridged by any authority -- and his arguments against the creation of arbitrary "laws" which everyone has to obey just because a legislature or a president gave them the title of a "law" deserve examination, consideration, and thoughtful debate today more than ever. And the false narratives supporting so-called laws which supposedly authorize some people to use violence against others, or to threaten violence against others, or to take away the freedom of others when those others have not done anything to harm anyone else's persons or property, must be shown to be the form of mind control that they are. No individuals or groups can give themselves the right to violate natural law and in doing so to infringe on anyone else's rights, simply by writing something down on a "sad little scrap of paper."

<urn:uuid:17474726-e53e-48c9-a980-028439f26526>

CC-MAIN-2018-13

http://www.starmythworld.com/mathisencorollary/2014/09/does-writing-something-on-piece-of.html

s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2018-13/segments/1521257647892.89/warc/CC-MAIN-20180322151300-20180322171300-00710.warc.gz

en

<urn:uuid:17474726-e53e-48c9-a980-028439f26526>_51

It is one of Lysander Spooner's singular contributions that he perceived and forcefully argued that a criminal "law" is no law at all, and that men and women have the right and the duty to treat it as such, and to inform others of their right to do the same.

"Whew! You sure gotta climb a lot of steps to get to the Capitol Building here in Washington. Well I wonder who that sad little scrap of paper is?" And with those words began one of my childhood favorite Schoolhouse Rock videos, which used to be on television back in the early 1970s when I wasn't really old enough to have any idea what exactly they were all about, or why they would sometimes show up in between episodes of Superfriends, Speed Racer, or Sigmund and the Sea Monsters. In I'm just a bill," we witness the progress by which "that sad little scrap of paper" receives a fancy seal and a president's signature and becomes a law ("He signed ya, Bill: Now you're a Law!"). Although the video does an admirable job depicting some of the checks and balances contained in the US Constitution, through which the members of both houses of the legislature must agree to send the bill forward to the executive branch for final approval before any proposed bill is signed into law, it does tend to convey the impression that any "good idea" can be transformed into "a Law" through the magical process of being debated by important-looking men in impressive-looking buildings with lots of steps and Greek columns, on top of high hills (and filled with long rows of impassive US Marines in dress blue uniforms, and statues of distinguished statesmen from previous generations), signed by the president using a fountain pen, and affixed with a shiny-looking seal with a ribbon. Nineteenth-century abolitionist, legal scholar and philosopher Lysander Spooner (1808 - 1887) would vehemently disagree that something becomes "a law" just because it goes through the above process and receives a president's signature and a fancy stamp. In fact, he published a treatise in 1850 entitled A Defence for Fugitive Slaves against the Acts of Congress of February 12, 1793 and September 18, 1850, in which he argued that an illegal law is no law at all, and confers no obligation on anyone to obey it, nor any authority to anyone desiring to enforce it. He begins his treatise with the complete copy of each of the two acts in question, both of which were considered "law" in 1850, compelling men or women who knew of a "fugitive slave" to help catch that "fugitive slave" or face penalties including fines and imprisonment (the term "slave" is put in quotation marks here because Spooner argues that no person can ever own another person, and that there actually is no such thing as a legal slave or the legal condition of slavery, all so-called "laws" which make one person the property of another being illegal and criminal). Those two so-called laws (the Fugitive Slave Act of 1793 and the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850) were both signed by the presidents of their day, George Washington in the first instance and Millard Fillmore in the second (they also bear the signatures of the respective Speakers of the House and Presidents of the Senate). But these signatures do not make them true laws, according to Spooner's arguments. Spooner demonstrates that holding anyone else as property is a crime, and that putting something on paper, stamping it with fancy seals, embellishing it with fancy legal language, and endorsing it with the signatures of people bearing impressive titles does not make it into law: it's still just a "sad little scrap of paper" in his eyes. He even goes so far as to say that men and women have the right to resist illegal laws, in what is undoubtedly among the most important sections of his argument, found on pages 27 and 28. There, he powerfully dismantles the counter-arguments that he anticipates from those who would argue that once something is "a law," it must be obeyed until it is repealed. If it were really true that an illegal or unconstitutional law must be obeyed until repealed, he reasons, then "there would therefore be no difference at all between a constitutional and an unconstitutional law, in respect to their binding force; and that would be equivalent to abolishing the constitution, and giving to the government unlimited power" (28). Those who would disagree with Lysander Spooner on this point are invited to participate in a mental experiment, in which they imagine that the president has signed a law saying that if you in any way hinder the search for an escaped slave, or in any way assist a person who has been designated a "slave" and who has run away and is hiding from the authorities, then you yourself are a criminal and can be subject to enormous fines and imprisonment. Note that this is not just a hypothetical scenario: the first and the thirteenth presidents of the United States each signed such a proposition into "law." Today, nobody reading this blog would likely argue that they would feel a moral duty to obey such a "law," or that they would have to actually support it until such time as they could eventually get it repealed through the same arduous process depicted in the Schoolhouse Rock video shown above. Nearly every man or woman would agree with Spooner that the institution of slavery and "laws" enforcing one person's ability to "own" another are not laws but rather outrageous crimes, and would reject the notion that writing such a "law" down on a piece of paper, stamping it with a pretty seal and adding some flowery signatures suddenly turns it into something that must be willingly and voluntarily obeyed until it can be debated and eventually repealed. Writing something on a piece of paper does not make it a law. But, if this is true, then what does make something a law? Lysander Spooner argued that the actions of men and women cannot actually make anything a law, but that there is already an immutable or unchangeable universal law which he called "Natural Law" or the "Science of Justice." He believed that human society should only enforce natural law, and not dream up additional or "artificial" laws, and that trying to add to or subtract from the natural law is as foolish as trying to add to or subtract from other natural laws, such as the law of gravity. He argued that men and women could voluntarily band together to help ensure compliance with this natural law among their group, but that they could not compel others to join that voluntary association. Even within such a voluntary association, he believed that people or groups could only rightly compel compliance with the natural law, which was generally extremely simple and basically entailed the command to "live honestly, hurt no one, and give everyone his or her due." In an 1882 publication entitled Natural Law; or The Science of Justice, Spooner set out to explain the concept of natural law. In it, he made a distinction between those things that everyone has a legal duty to either do or to refrain from doing, and which others can and must compel in others, and those things which everyone has a moral duty to do but which must be left up to each person's own judgment and which no one has the right or duty to compel. Below is a table based upon Spooner's 1882 text, generally following the order and wording of his argument: The left column (labeled "Legal Duty" and highlighted in yellow), in Spooner's view, constitutes those things which are part of the natural law, and can actually be the only things which anyone can rightfully use force to uphold. He says that everyone has a duty to refrain from injuring others, and that force may and must be used when someone sees someone else in the act of injuring someone else. Spooner further argues in that 1882 text that nearly everyone understands these natural law prohibitions and duties before they are even old enough to know that "three and three are six, or five and five ten" (9). The right column (labeled "Moral Duty" and highlighted in green), in Spooner's view, constitutes those things which we do have a moral duty to perform, but which no one else can compel us to do: we must judge the extent to which we are able to do those things, and how we wish to best accomplish them when we do decide to do them. Thus, in Spooner's view, any so-called law that goes beyond the legal duties in the left column (or, worse yet, directly contradicts and violates those legal duties, as did the Fugitive Slave Acts) is actually no law at all and it can and must be disobeyed as illegal and criminal, regardless of whether it was written down on paper using legal-sounding language and passed by men and women in fancy buildings and stamped with fancy stamps and inscribed with fancy signatures. At this point, the reader may be thinking that all of this is very nice, but what on earth does it have to do with the general subject matter covered in this blog? The answer is: everything. Because, as insightful thinkers such as Mark Passio have articulated, violations of natural law are so contrary to our innate understanding of right and wrong (remember that Spooner says we know it before we even know that 3 + 3 = 6) that artificial laws which violate natural law must always be dressed up with various symbols and word-formulas designed to convey legitimacy, and reinforced by systems of mind control by which men and women who should know that those violations are immoral can somehow be made to believe that those violations of natural law are instead right and good and deserving of support. Institutionalized violations of natural law are nearly always accompanied by powerful forms of illusion, or the creation of "false realities" that enable those violations to appear legitimate, and to get people to go along with them. Therefore, seeing through these false realities is of absolutely primary importance. This blog primarily examines false realities which can be seen operating all around us, including in the realm of conventional history as taught in all the institutions of academia and reinforced by the organs of the conventional media (see for example "Piercing the fog of deception that hides the contours of history" and also the two short videos entitled "The importance of challenging false narratives"). These false realities or false narratives which cause people to accept gross violations of natural law are operating today with just as much force as they were operating in Spooner's day -- perhaps even more so. False narratives assist in getting people to accept the premise that so-called "laws" permitting government surveillance of individual men and women at virtually any time and place are legitimate (see here and here). This is a violation of natural law in that it enables hidden enforcers and observers to treat individuals as criminals on the suspicion that they might do something to harm others, elevating some to the status of "prison guards" and demoting everyone else to the status of prisoners under constant suspicion and surveillance. False narratives convince people to accept the idea that men and women can and should be locked up and denied their freedom for possessing certain plants or mushrooms known to induce a state of ecstasy. This is a violation of natural law in that it uses force to prohibit behavior that in no way harms the person or property of another or infringes on another's rights. False narratives convince people to accept the idea that men and women representing the government and wearing military gear and driving military vehicles can point military weapons at people assembling in the streets to express themselves, or at people in their homes in a neighborhood where fugitives are supposedly hiding. These are clear violations of natural law in that such actions basically declare that force can be used against citizens whenever it is convenient for the government to say there is a need to do so, an idea which Spooner eloquently demolishes in pages 27 and 28 of his text against the Fugitive Slave Acts. In a passage labeled "Section IV" of his 1882 treatise on Natural Law, Spooner declares that the rights belonging to every human being by the unchangeable principle of justice "necessarily remain with him [or her] during life," and although these rights are "capable of being trampled upon" they are nevertheless "incapable of being blotted out, extinguished, annihilated, or separated from" each and every human being, and that there is no authority high enough to simply declare them null or void. False narratives have even apparently convinced some people that it is somehow excusable to cover up evidence of the potentially harmful effects of vaccines on certain children in order to support "herd immunity." All of the above examples, along with the many other violations of natural law currently taking place, are enabled and excused by a variety of false realities or false narratives, created and maintained in order to lend an air of legitimacy to these violations. So were many other horrendous violations of natural law which were enabled by false narratives and illusions throughout history, including the enslavement of Africans which Spooner argued against in the 1850s, to the destruction of Native American tribes in the western US after the end of the US Civil War and the seizure of their lands and their confinement to reservations or "agencies," to the seizure of the Hawaiian Islands and the Philippines in the years after that, and on and on right up to the present. All of the above examples were enabled by lies, illusions, and false narratives or false realities. For more on breaking through illusions and false realities, and creating new realities, see for example this previous post entitled "Jon Rappoport's talk on the trickster-god and creating reality." It is one of Lysander Spooner's singular contributions that he perceived and forcefully argued that a criminal "law" is no law at all, and that men and women have the right and the duty to treat it as such, and to inform others of their right to do the same. Putting something on paper doesn't make it a "law" -- even if it has been adorned with all the necessary stamps and signatures. As Spooner alludes in the writings linked above, the US Constitution as originally designed, and especially the Bill of Rights as originally conceived, were designed to safeguard natural-law rights in many ways, and to the extent that Schoolhouse Rock taught those principles to a new generation in the 1970s, it can be commended. Perhaps Spooner's arguments about an illegal law being no law at all could not really be expected to be squeezed into the "I'm Just a Bill" song. But Lysander Spooner's arguments deserve to be brought into the modern era, in much the same way that the creators of Schoolhouse Rock tried to speak to the younger generation of the 1970s using the language and imagery of the 1970s. Spooner's arguments on behalf of the individual's rights under natural law -- rights which could never be abridged by any authority -- and his arguments against the creation of arbitrary "laws" which everyone has to obey just because a legislature or a president gave them the title of a "law" deserve examination, consideration, and thoughtful debate today more than ever. And the false narratives supporting so-called laws which supposedly authorize some people to use violence against others, or to threaten violence against others, or to take away the freedom of others when those others have not done anything to harm anyone else's persons or property, must be shown to be the form of mind control that they are. No individuals or groups can give themselves the right to violate natural law and in doing so to infringe on anyone else's rights, simply by writing something down on a "sad little scrap of paper."

<urn:uuid:17474726-e53e-48c9-a980-028439f26526>

CC-MAIN-2018-13

http://www.starmythworld.com/mathisencorollary/2014/09/does-writing-something-on-piece-of.html

s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2018-13/segments/1521257647892.89/warc/CC-MAIN-20180322151300-20180322171300-00710.warc.gz

en

<urn:uuid:17474726-e53e-48c9-a980-028439f26526>_52

Putting something on paper doesn't make it a "law" -- even if it has been adorned with all the necessary stamps and signatures.

"Whew! You sure gotta climb a lot of steps to get to the Capitol Building here in Washington. Well I wonder who that sad little scrap of paper is?" And with those words began one of my childhood favorite Schoolhouse Rock videos, which used to be on television back in the early 1970s when I wasn't really old enough to have any idea what exactly they were all about, or why they would sometimes show up in between episodes of Superfriends, Speed Racer, or Sigmund and the Sea Monsters. In I'm just a bill," we witness the progress by which "that sad little scrap of paper" receives a fancy seal and a president's signature and becomes a law ("He signed ya, Bill: Now you're a Law!"). Although the video does an admirable job depicting some of the checks and balances contained in the US Constitution, through which the members of both houses of the legislature must agree to send the bill forward to the executive branch for final approval before any proposed bill is signed into law, it does tend to convey the impression that any "good idea" can be transformed into "a Law" through the magical process of being debated by important-looking men in impressive-looking buildings with lots of steps and Greek columns, on top of high hills (and filled with long rows of impassive US Marines in dress blue uniforms, and statues of distinguished statesmen from previous generations), signed by the president using a fountain pen, and affixed with a shiny-looking seal with a ribbon. Nineteenth-century abolitionist, legal scholar and philosopher Lysander Spooner (1808 - 1887) would vehemently disagree that something becomes "a law" just because it goes through the above process and receives a president's signature and a fancy stamp. In fact, he published a treatise in 1850 entitled A Defence for Fugitive Slaves against the Acts of Congress of February 12, 1793 and September 18, 1850, in which he argued that an illegal law is no law at all, and confers no obligation on anyone to obey it, nor any authority to anyone desiring to enforce it. He begins his treatise with the complete copy of each of the two acts in question, both of which were considered "law" in 1850, compelling men or women who knew of a "fugitive slave" to help catch that "fugitive slave" or face penalties including fines and imprisonment (the term "slave" is put in quotation marks here because Spooner argues that no person can ever own another person, and that there actually is no such thing as a legal slave or the legal condition of slavery, all so-called "laws" which make one person the property of another being illegal and criminal). Those two so-called laws (the Fugitive Slave Act of 1793 and the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850) were both signed by the presidents of their day, George Washington in the first instance and Millard Fillmore in the second (they also bear the signatures of the respective Speakers of the House and Presidents of the Senate). But these signatures do not make them true laws, according to Spooner's arguments. Spooner demonstrates that holding anyone else as property is a crime, and that putting something on paper, stamping it with fancy seals, embellishing it with fancy legal language, and endorsing it with the signatures of people bearing impressive titles does not make it into law: it's still just a "sad little scrap of paper" in his eyes. He even goes so far as to say that men and women have the right to resist illegal laws, in what is undoubtedly among the most important sections of his argument, found on pages 27 and 28. There, he powerfully dismantles the counter-arguments that he anticipates from those who would argue that once something is "a law," it must be obeyed until it is repealed. If it were really true that an illegal or unconstitutional law must be obeyed until repealed, he reasons, then "there would therefore be no difference at all between a constitutional and an unconstitutional law, in respect to their binding force; and that would be equivalent to abolishing the constitution, and giving to the government unlimited power" (28). Those who would disagree with Lysander Spooner on this point are invited to participate in a mental experiment, in which they imagine that the president has signed a law saying that if you in any way hinder the search for an escaped slave, or in any way assist a person who has been designated a "slave" and who has run away and is hiding from the authorities, then you yourself are a criminal and can be subject to enormous fines and imprisonment. Note that this is not just a hypothetical scenario: the first and the thirteenth presidents of the United States each signed such a proposition into "law." Today, nobody reading this blog would likely argue that they would feel a moral duty to obey such a "law," or that they would have to actually support it until such time as they could eventually get it repealed through the same arduous process depicted in the Schoolhouse Rock video shown above. Nearly every man or woman would agree with Spooner that the institution of slavery and "laws" enforcing one person's ability to "own" another are not laws but rather outrageous crimes, and would reject the notion that writing such a "law" down on a piece of paper, stamping it with a pretty seal and adding some flowery signatures suddenly turns it into something that must be willingly and voluntarily obeyed until it can be debated and eventually repealed. Writing something on a piece of paper does not make it a law. But, if this is true, then what does make something a law? Lysander Spooner argued that the actions of men and women cannot actually make anything a law, but that there is already an immutable or unchangeable universal law which he called "Natural Law" or the "Science of Justice." He believed that human society should only enforce natural law, and not dream up additional or "artificial" laws, and that trying to add to or subtract from the natural law is as foolish as trying to add to or subtract from other natural laws, such as the law of gravity. He argued that men and women could voluntarily band together to help ensure compliance with this natural law among their group, but that they could not compel others to join that voluntary association. Even within such a voluntary association, he believed that people or groups could only rightly compel compliance with the natural law, which was generally extremely simple and basically entailed the command to "live honestly, hurt no one, and give everyone his or her due." In an 1882 publication entitled Natural Law; or The Science of Justice, Spooner set out to explain the concept of natural law. In it, he made a distinction between those things that everyone has a legal duty to either do or to refrain from doing, and which others can and must compel in others, and those things which everyone has a moral duty to do but which must be left up to each person's own judgment and which no one has the right or duty to compel. Below is a table based upon Spooner's 1882 text, generally following the order and wording of his argument: The left column (labeled "Legal Duty" and highlighted in yellow), in Spooner's view, constitutes those things which are part of the natural law, and can actually be the only things which anyone can rightfully use force to uphold. He says that everyone has a duty to refrain from injuring others, and that force may and must be used when someone sees someone else in the act of injuring someone else. Spooner further argues in that 1882 text that nearly everyone understands these natural law prohibitions and duties before they are even old enough to know that "three and three are six, or five and five ten" (9). The right column (labeled "Moral Duty" and highlighted in green), in Spooner's view, constitutes those things which we do have a moral duty to perform, but which no one else can compel us to do: we must judge the extent to which we are able to do those things, and how we wish to best accomplish them when we do decide to do them. Thus, in Spooner's view, any so-called law that goes beyond the legal duties in the left column (or, worse yet, directly contradicts and violates those legal duties, as did the Fugitive Slave Acts) is actually no law at all and it can and must be disobeyed as illegal and criminal, regardless of whether it was written down on paper using legal-sounding language and passed by men and women in fancy buildings and stamped with fancy stamps and inscribed with fancy signatures. At this point, the reader may be thinking that all of this is very nice, but what on earth does it have to do with the general subject matter covered in this blog? The answer is: everything. Because, as insightful thinkers such as Mark Passio have articulated, violations of natural law are so contrary to our innate understanding of right and wrong (remember that Spooner says we know it before we even know that 3 + 3 = 6) that artificial laws which violate natural law must always be dressed up with various symbols and word-formulas designed to convey legitimacy, and reinforced by systems of mind control by which men and women who should know that those violations are immoral can somehow be made to believe that those violations of natural law are instead right and good and deserving of support. Institutionalized violations of natural law are nearly always accompanied by powerful forms of illusion, or the creation of "false realities" that enable those violations to appear legitimate, and to get people to go along with them. Therefore, seeing through these false realities is of absolutely primary importance. This blog primarily examines false realities which can be seen operating all around us, including in the realm of conventional history as taught in all the institutions of academia and reinforced by the organs of the conventional media (see for example "Piercing the fog of deception that hides the contours of history" and also the two short videos entitled "The importance of challenging false narratives"). These false realities or false narratives which cause people to accept gross violations of natural law are operating today with just as much force as they were operating in Spooner's day -- perhaps even more so. False narratives assist in getting people to accept the premise that so-called "laws" permitting government surveillance of individual men and women at virtually any time and place are legitimate (see here and here). This is a violation of natural law in that it enables hidden enforcers and observers to treat individuals as criminals on the suspicion that they might do something to harm others, elevating some to the status of "prison guards" and demoting everyone else to the status of prisoners under constant suspicion and surveillance. False narratives convince people to accept the idea that men and women can and should be locked up and denied their freedom for possessing certain plants or mushrooms known to induce a state of ecstasy. This is a violation of natural law in that it uses force to prohibit behavior that in no way harms the person or property of another or infringes on another's rights. False narratives convince people to accept the idea that men and women representing the government and wearing military gear and driving military vehicles can point military weapons at people assembling in the streets to express themselves, or at people in their homes in a neighborhood where fugitives are supposedly hiding. These are clear violations of natural law in that such actions basically declare that force can be used against citizens whenever it is convenient for the government to say there is a need to do so, an idea which Spooner eloquently demolishes in pages 27 and 28 of his text against the Fugitive Slave Acts. In a passage labeled "Section IV" of his 1882 treatise on Natural Law, Spooner declares that the rights belonging to every human being by the unchangeable principle of justice "necessarily remain with him [or her] during life," and although these rights are "capable of being trampled upon" they are nevertheless "incapable of being blotted out, extinguished, annihilated, or separated from" each and every human being, and that there is no authority high enough to simply declare them null or void. False narratives have even apparently convinced some people that it is somehow excusable to cover up evidence of the potentially harmful effects of vaccines on certain children in order to support "herd immunity." All of the above examples, along with the many other violations of natural law currently taking place, are enabled and excused by a variety of false realities or false narratives, created and maintained in order to lend an air of legitimacy to these violations. So were many other horrendous violations of natural law which were enabled by false narratives and illusions throughout history, including the enslavement of Africans which Spooner argued against in the 1850s, to the destruction of Native American tribes in the western US after the end of the US Civil War and the seizure of their lands and their confinement to reservations or "agencies," to the seizure of the Hawaiian Islands and the Philippines in the years after that, and on and on right up to the present. All of the above examples were enabled by lies, illusions, and false narratives or false realities. For more on breaking through illusions and false realities, and creating new realities, see for example this previous post entitled "Jon Rappoport's talk on the trickster-god and creating reality." It is one of Lysander Spooner's singular contributions that he perceived and forcefully argued that a criminal "law" is no law at all, and that men and women have the right and the duty to treat it as such, and to inform others of their right to do the same. Putting something on paper doesn't make it a "law" -- even if it has been adorned with all the necessary stamps and signatures. As Spooner alludes in the writings linked above, the US Constitution as originally designed, and especially the Bill of Rights as originally conceived, were designed to safeguard natural-law rights in many ways, and to the extent that Schoolhouse Rock taught those principles to a new generation in the 1970s, it can be commended. Perhaps Spooner's arguments about an illegal law being no law at all could not really be expected to be squeezed into the "I'm Just a Bill" song. But Lysander Spooner's arguments deserve to be brought into the modern era, in much the same way that the creators of Schoolhouse Rock tried to speak to the younger generation of the 1970s using the language and imagery of the 1970s. Spooner's arguments on behalf of the individual's rights under natural law -- rights which could never be abridged by any authority -- and his arguments against the creation of arbitrary "laws" which everyone has to obey just because a legislature or a president gave them the title of a "law" deserve examination, consideration, and thoughtful debate today more than ever. And the false narratives supporting so-called laws which supposedly authorize some people to use violence against others, or to threaten violence against others, or to take away the freedom of others when those others have not done anything to harm anyone else's persons or property, must be shown to be the form of mind control that they are. No individuals or groups can give themselves the right to violate natural law and in doing so to infringe on anyone else's rights, simply by writing something down on a "sad little scrap of paper."

<urn:uuid:17474726-e53e-48c9-a980-028439f26526>

CC-MAIN-2018-13

http://www.starmythworld.com/mathisencorollary/2014/09/does-writing-something-on-piece-of.html

s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2018-13/segments/1521257647892.89/warc/CC-MAIN-20180322151300-20180322171300-00710.warc.gz

en

<urn:uuid:17474726-e53e-48c9-a980-028439f26526>_53

As Spooner alludes in the writings linked above, the US Constitution as originally designed, and especially the Bill of Rights as originally conceived, were designed to safeguard natural-law rights in many ways, and to the extent that Schoolhouse Rock taught those principles to a new generation in the 1970s, it can be commended.

"Whew! You sure gotta climb a lot of steps to get to the Capitol Building here in Washington. Well I wonder who that sad little scrap of paper is?" And with those words began one of my childhood favorite Schoolhouse Rock videos, which used to be on television back in the early 1970s when I wasn't really old enough to have any idea what exactly they were all about, or why they would sometimes show up in between episodes of Superfriends, Speed Racer, or Sigmund and the Sea Monsters. In I'm just a bill," we witness the progress by which "that sad little scrap of paper" receives a fancy seal and a president's signature and becomes a law ("He signed ya, Bill: Now you're a Law!"). Although the video does an admirable job depicting some of the checks and balances contained in the US Constitution, through which the members of both houses of the legislature must agree to send the bill forward to the executive branch for final approval before any proposed bill is signed into law, it does tend to convey the impression that any "good idea" can be transformed into "a Law" through the magical process of being debated by important-looking men in impressive-looking buildings with lots of steps and Greek columns, on top of high hills (and filled with long rows of impassive US Marines in dress blue uniforms, and statues of distinguished statesmen from previous generations), signed by the president using a fountain pen, and affixed with a shiny-looking seal with a ribbon. Nineteenth-century abolitionist, legal scholar and philosopher Lysander Spooner (1808 - 1887) would vehemently disagree that something becomes "a law" just because it goes through the above process and receives a president's signature and a fancy stamp. In fact, he published a treatise in 1850 entitled A Defence for Fugitive Slaves against the Acts of Congress of February 12, 1793 and September 18, 1850, in which he argued that an illegal law is no law at all, and confers no obligation on anyone to obey it, nor any authority to anyone desiring to enforce it. He begins his treatise with the complete copy of each of the two acts in question, both of which were considered "law" in 1850, compelling men or women who knew of a "fugitive slave" to help catch that "fugitive slave" or face penalties including fines and imprisonment (the term "slave" is put in quotation marks here because Spooner argues that no person can ever own another person, and that there actually is no such thing as a legal slave or the legal condition of slavery, all so-called "laws" which make one person the property of another being illegal and criminal). Those two so-called laws (the Fugitive Slave Act of 1793 and the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850) were both signed by the presidents of their day, George Washington in the first instance and Millard Fillmore in the second (they also bear the signatures of the respective Speakers of the House and Presidents of the Senate). But these signatures do not make them true laws, according to Spooner's arguments. Spooner demonstrates that holding anyone else as property is a crime, and that putting something on paper, stamping it with fancy seals, embellishing it with fancy legal language, and endorsing it with the signatures of people bearing impressive titles does not make it into law: it's still just a "sad little scrap of paper" in his eyes. He even goes so far as to say that men and women have the right to resist illegal laws, in what is undoubtedly among the most important sections of his argument, found on pages 27 and 28. There, he powerfully dismantles the counter-arguments that he anticipates from those who would argue that once something is "a law," it must be obeyed until it is repealed. If it were really true that an illegal or unconstitutional law must be obeyed until repealed, he reasons, then "there would therefore be no difference at all between a constitutional and an unconstitutional law, in respect to their binding force; and that would be equivalent to abolishing the constitution, and giving to the government unlimited power" (28). Those who would disagree with Lysander Spooner on this point are invited to participate in a mental experiment, in which they imagine that the president has signed a law saying that if you in any way hinder the search for an escaped slave, or in any way assist a person who has been designated a "slave" and who has run away and is hiding from the authorities, then you yourself are a criminal and can be subject to enormous fines and imprisonment. Note that this is not just a hypothetical scenario: the first and the thirteenth presidents of the United States each signed such a proposition into "law." Today, nobody reading this blog would likely argue that they would feel a moral duty to obey such a "law," or that they would have to actually support it until such time as they could eventually get it repealed through the same arduous process depicted in the Schoolhouse Rock video shown above. Nearly every man or woman would agree with Spooner that the institution of slavery and "laws" enforcing one person's ability to "own" another are not laws but rather outrageous crimes, and would reject the notion that writing such a "law" down on a piece of paper, stamping it with a pretty seal and adding some flowery signatures suddenly turns it into something that must be willingly and voluntarily obeyed until it can be debated and eventually repealed. Writing something on a piece of paper does not make it a law. But, if this is true, then what does make something a law? Lysander Spooner argued that the actions of men and women cannot actually make anything a law, but that there is already an immutable or unchangeable universal law which he called "Natural Law" or the "Science of Justice." He believed that human society should only enforce natural law, and not dream up additional or "artificial" laws, and that trying to add to or subtract from the natural law is as foolish as trying to add to or subtract from other natural laws, such as the law of gravity. He argued that men and women could voluntarily band together to help ensure compliance with this natural law among their group, but that they could not compel others to join that voluntary association. Even within such a voluntary association, he believed that people or groups could only rightly compel compliance with the natural law, which was generally extremely simple and basically entailed the command to "live honestly, hurt no one, and give everyone his or her due." In an 1882 publication entitled Natural Law; or The Science of Justice, Spooner set out to explain the concept of natural law. In it, he made a distinction between those things that everyone has a legal duty to either do or to refrain from doing, and which others can and must compel in others, and those things which everyone has a moral duty to do but which must be left up to each person's own judgment and which no one has the right or duty to compel. Below is a table based upon Spooner's 1882 text, generally following the order and wording of his argument: The left column (labeled "Legal Duty" and highlighted in yellow), in Spooner's view, constitutes those things which are part of the natural law, and can actually be the only things which anyone can rightfully use force to uphold. He says that everyone has a duty to refrain from injuring others, and that force may and must be used when someone sees someone else in the act of injuring someone else. Spooner further argues in that 1882 text that nearly everyone understands these natural law prohibitions and duties before they are even old enough to know that "three and three are six, or five and five ten" (9). The right column (labeled "Moral Duty" and highlighted in green), in Spooner's view, constitutes those things which we do have a moral duty to perform, but which no one else can compel us to do: we must judge the extent to which we are able to do those things, and how we wish to best accomplish them when we do decide to do them. Thus, in Spooner's view, any so-called law that goes beyond the legal duties in the left column (or, worse yet, directly contradicts and violates those legal duties, as did the Fugitive Slave Acts) is actually no law at all and it can and must be disobeyed as illegal and criminal, regardless of whether it was written down on paper using legal-sounding language and passed by men and women in fancy buildings and stamped with fancy stamps and inscribed with fancy signatures. At this point, the reader may be thinking that all of this is very nice, but what on earth does it have to do with the general subject matter covered in this blog? The answer is: everything. Because, as insightful thinkers such as Mark Passio have articulated, violations of natural law are so contrary to our innate understanding of right and wrong (remember that Spooner says we know it before we even know that 3 + 3 = 6) that artificial laws which violate natural law must always be dressed up with various symbols and word-formulas designed to convey legitimacy, and reinforced by systems of mind control by which men and women who should know that those violations are immoral can somehow be made to believe that those violations of natural law are instead right and good and deserving of support. Institutionalized violations of natural law are nearly always accompanied by powerful forms of illusion, or the creation of "false realities" that enable those violations to appear legitimate, and to get people to go along with them. Therefore, seeing through these false realities is of absolutely primary importance. This blog primarily examines false realities which can be seen operating all around us, including in the realm of conventional history as taught in all the institutions of academia and reinforced by the organs of the conventional media (see for example "Piercing the fog of deception that hides the contours of history" and also the two short videos entitled "The importance of challenging false narratives"). These false realities or false narratives which cause people to accept gross violations of natural law are operating today with just as much force as they were operating in Spooner's day -- perhaps even more so. False narratives assist in getting people to accept the premise that so-called "laws" permitting government surveillance of individual men and women at virtually any time and place are legitimate (see here and here). This is a violation of natural law in that it enables hidden enforcers and observers to treat individuals as criminals on the suspicion that they might do something to harm others, elevating some to the status of "prison guards" and demoting everyone else to the status of prisoners under constant suspicion and surveillance. False narratives convince people to accept the idea that men and women can and should be locked up and denied their freedom for possessing certain plants or mushrooms known to induce a state of ecstasy. This is a violation of natural law in that it uses force to prohibit behavior that in no way harms the person or property of another or infringes on another's rights. False narratives convince people to accept the idea that men and women representing the government and wearing military gear and driving military vehicles can point military weapons at people assembling in the streets to express themselves, or at people in their homes in a neighborhood where fugitives are supposedly hiding. These are clear violations of natural law in that such actions basically declare that force can be used against citizens whenever it is convenient for the government to say there is a need to do so, an idea which Spooner eloquently demolishes in pages 27 and 28 of his text against the Fugitive Slave Acts. In a passage labeled "Section IV" of his 1882 treatise on Natural Law, Spooner declares that the rights belonging to every human being by the unchangeable principle of justice "necessarily remain with him [or her] during life," and although these rights are "capable of being trampled upon" they are nevertheless "incapable of being blotted out, extinguished, annihilated, or separated from" each and every human being, and that there is no authority high enough to simply declare them null or void. False narratives have even apparently convinced some people that it is somehow excusable to cover up evidence of the potentially harmful effects of vaccines on certain children in order to support "herd immunity." All of the above examples, along with the many other violations of natural law currently taking place, are enabled and excused by a variety of false realities or false narratives, created and maintained in order to lend an air of legitimacy to these violations. So were many other horrendous violations of natural law which were enabled by false narratives and illusions throughout history, including the enslavement of Africans which Spooner argued against in the 1850s, to the destruction of Native American tribes in the western US after the end of the US Civil War and the seizure of their lands and their confinement to reservations or "agencies," to the seizure of the Hawaiian Islands and the Philippines in the years after that, and on and on right up to the present. All of the above examples were enabled by lies, illusions, and false narratives or false realities. For more on breaking through illusions and false realities, and creating new realities, see for example this previous post entitled "Jon Rappoport's talk on the trickster-god and creating reality." It is one of Lysander Spooner's singular contributions that he perceived and forcefully argued that a criminal "law" is no law at all, and that men and women have the right and the duty to treat it as such, and to inform others of their right to do the same. Putting something on paper doesn't make it a "law" -- even if it has been adorned with all the necessary stamps and signatures. As Spooner alludes in the writings linked above, the US Constitution as originally designed, and especially the Bill of Rights as originally conceived, were designed to safeguard natural-law rights in many ways, and to the extent that Schoolhouse Rock taught those principles to a new generation in the 1970s, it can be commended. Perhaps Spooner's arguments about an illegal law being no law at all could not really be expected to be squeezed into the "I'm Just a Bill" song. But Lysander Spooner's arguments deserve to be brought into the modern era, in much the same way that the creators of Schoolhouse Rock tried to speak to the younger generation of the 1970s using the language and imagery of the 1970s. Spooner's arguments on behalf of the individual's rights under natural law -- rights which could never be abridged by any authority -- and his arguments against the creation of arbitrary "laws" which everyone has to obey just because a legislature or a president gave them the title of a "law" deserve examination, consideration, and thoughtful debate today more than ever. And the false narratives supporting so-called laws which supposedly authorize some people to use violence against others, or to threaten violence against others, or to take away the freedom of others when those others have not done anything to harm anyone else's persons or property, must be shown to be the form of mind control that they are. No individuals or groups can give themselves the right to violate natural law and in doing so to infringe on anyone else's rights, simply by writing something down on a "sad little scrap of paper."

<urn:uuid:17474726-e53e-48c9-a980-028439f26526>

CC-MAIN-2018-13

http://www.starmythworld.com/mathisencorollary/2014/09/does-writing-something-on-piece-of.html

s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2018-13/segments/1521257647892.89/warc/CC-MAIN-20180322151300-20180322171300-00710.warc.gz

en

<urn:uuid:17474726-e53e-48c9-a980-028439f26526>_54

Perhaps Spooner's arguments about an illegal law being no law at all could not really be expected to be squeezed into the "I'm Just a Bill" song.

"Whew! You sure gotta climb a lot of steps to get to the Capitol Building here in Washington. Well I wonder who that sad little scrap of paper is?" And with those words began one of my childhood favorite Schoolhouse Rock videos, which used to be on television back in the early 1970s when I wasn't really old enough to have any idea what exactly they were all about, or why they would sometimes show up in between episodes of Superfriends, Speed Racer, or Sigmund and the Sea Monsters. In I'm just a bill," we witness the progress by which "that sad little scrap of paper" receives a fancy seal and a president's signature and becomes a law ("He signed ya, Bill: Now you're a Law!"). Although the video does an admirable job depicting some of the checks and balances contained in the US Constitution, through which the members of both houses of the legislature must agree to send the bill forward to the executive branch for final approval before any proposed bill is signed into law, it does tend to convey the impression that any "good idea" can be transformed into "a Law" through the magical process of being debated by important-looking men in impressive-looking buildings with lots of steps and Greek columns, on top of high hills (and filled with long rows of impassive US Marines in dress blue uniforms, and statues of distinguished statesmen from previous generations), signed by the president using a fountain pen, and affixed with a shiny-looking seal with a ribbon. Nineteenth-century abolitionist, legal scholar and philosopher Lysander Spooner (1808 - 1887) would vehemently disagree that something becomes "a law" just because it goes through the above process and receives a president's signature and a fancy stamp. In fact, he published a treatise in 1850 entitled A Defence for Fugitive Slaves against the Acts of Congress of February 12, 1793 and September 18, 1850, in which he argued that an illegal law is no law at all, and confers no obligation on anyone to obey it, nor any authority to anyone desiring to enforce it. He begins his treatise with the complete copy of each of the two acts in question, both of which were considered "law" in 1850, compelling men or women who knew of a "fugitive slave" to help catch that "fugitive slave" or face penalties including fines and imprisonment (the term "slave" is put in quotation marks here because Spooner argues that no person can ever own another person, and that there actually is no such thing as a legal slave or the legal condition of slavery, all so-called "laws" which make one person the property of another being illegal and criminal). Those two so-called laws (the Fugitive Slave Act of 1793 and the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850) were both signed by the presidents of their day, George Washington in the first instance and Millard Fillmore in the second (they also bear the signatures of the respective Speakers of the House and Presidents of the Senate). But these signatures do not make them true laws, according to Spooner's arguments. Spooner demonstrates that holding anyone else as property is a crime, and that putting something on paper, stamping it with fancy seals, embellishing it with fancy legal language, and endorsing it with the signatures of people bearing impressive titles does not make it into law: it's still just a "sad little scrap of paper" in his eyes. He even goes so far as to say that men and women have the right to resist illegal laws, in what is undoubtedly among the most important sections of his argument, found on pages 27 and 28. There, he powerfully dismantles the counter-arguments that he anticipates from those who would argue that once something is "a law," it must be obeyed until it is repealed. If it were really true that an illegal or unconstitutional law must be obeyed until repealed, he reasons, then "there would therefore be no difference at all between a constitutional and an unconstitutional law, in respect to their binding force; and that would be equivalent to abolishing the constitution, and giving to the government unlimited power" (28). Those who would disagree with Lysander Spooner on this point are invited to participate in a mental experiment, in which they imagine that the president has signed a law saying that if you in any way hinder the search for an escaped slave, or in any way assist a person who has been designated a "slave" and who has run away and is hiding from the authorities, then you yourself are a criminal and can be subject to enormous fines and imprisonment. Note that this is not just a hypothetical scenario: the first and the thirteenth presidents of the United States each signed such a proposition into "law." Today, nobody reading this blog would likely argue that they would feel a moral duty to obey such a "law," or that they would have to actually support it until such time as they could eventually get it repealed through the same arduous process depicted in the Schoolhouse Rock video shown above. Nearly every man or woman would agree with Spooner that the institution of slavery and "laws" enforcing one person's ability to "own" another are not laws but rather outrageous crimes, and would reject the notion that writing such a "law" down on a piece of paper, stamping it with a pretty seal and adding some flowery signatures suddenly turns it into something that must be willingly and voluntarily obeyed until it can be debated and eventually repealed. Writing something on a piece of paper does not make it a law. But, if this is true, then what does make something a law? Lysander Spooner argued that the actions of men and women cannot actually make anything a law, but that there is already an immutable or unchangeable universal law which he called "Natural Law" or the "Science of Justice." He believed that human society should only enforce natural law, and not dream up additional or "artificial" laws, and that trying to add to or subtract from the natural law is as foolish as trying to add to or subtract from other natural laws, such as the law of gravity. He argued that men and women could voluntarily band together to help ensure compliance with this natural law among their group, but that they could not compel others to join that voluntary association. Even within such a voluntary association, he believed that people or groups could only rightly compel compliance with the natural law, which was generally extremely simple and basically entailed the command to "live honestly, hurt no one, and give everyone his or her due." In an 1882 publication entitled Natural Law; or The Science of Justice, Spooner set out to explain the concept of natural law. In it, he made a distinction between those things that everyone has a legal duty to either do or to refrain from doing, and which others can and must compel in others, and those things which everyone has a moral duty to do but which must be left up to each person's own judgment and which no one has the right or duty to compel. Below is a table based upon Spooner's 1882 text, generally following the order and wording of his argument: The left column (labeled "Legal Duty" and highlighted in yellow), in Spooner's view, constitutes those things which are part of the natural law, and can actually be the only things which anyone can rightfully use force to uphold. He says that everyone has a duty to refrain from injuring others, and that force may and must be used when someone sees someone else in the act of injuring someone else. Spooner further argues in that 1882 text that nearly everyone understands these natural law prohibitions and duties before they are even old enough to know that "three and three are six, or five and five ten" (9). The right column (labeled "Moral Duty" and highlighted in green), in Spooner's view, constitutes those things which we do have a moral duty to perform, but which no one else can compel us to do: we must judge the extent to which we are able to do those things, and how we wish to best accomplish them when we do decide to do them. Thus, in Spooner's view, any so-called law that goes beyond the legal duties in the left column (or, worse yet, directly contradicts and violates those legal duties, as did the Fugitive Slave Acts) is actually no law at all and it can and must be disobeyed as illegal and criminal, regardless of whether it was written down on paper using legal-sounding language and passed by men and women in fancy buildings and stamped with fancy stamps and inscribed with fancy signatures. At this point, the reader may be thinking that all of this is very nice, but what on earth does it have to do with the general subject matter covered in this blog? The answer is: everything. Because, as insightful thinkers such as Mark Passio have articulated, violations of natural law are so contrary to our innate understanding of right and wrong (remember that Spooner says we know it before we even know that 3 + 3 = 6) that artificial laws which violate natural law must always be dressed up with various symbols and word-formulas designed to convey legitimacy, and reinforced by systems of mind control by which men and women who should know that those violations are immoral can somehow be made to believe that those violations of natural law are instead right and good and deserving of support. Institutionalized violations of natural law are nearly always accompanied by powerful forms of illusion, or the creation of "false realities" that enable those violations to appear legitimate, and to get people to go along with them. Therefore, seeing through these false realities is of absolutely primary importance. This blog primarily examines false realities which can be seen operating all around us, including in the realm of conventional history as taught in all the institutions of academia and reinforced by the organs of the conventional media (see for example "Piercing the fog of deception that hides the contours of history" and also the two short videos entitled "The importance of challenging false narratives"). These false realities or false narratives which cause people to accept gross violations of natural law are operating today with just as much force as they were operating in Spooner's day -- perhaps even more so. False narratives assist in getting people to accept the premise that so-called "laws" permitting government surveillance of individual men and women at virtually any time and place are legitimate (see here and here). This is a violation of natural law in that it enables hidden enforcers and observers to treat individuals as criminals on the suspicion that they might do something to harm others, elevating some to the status of "prison guards" and demoting everyone else to the status of prisoners under constant suspicion and surveillance. False narratives convince people to accept the idea that men and women can and should be locked up and denied their freedom for possessing certain plants or mushrooms known to induce a state of ecstasy. This is a violation of natural law in that it uses force to prohibit behavior that in no way harms the person or property of another or infringes on another's rights. False narratives convince people to accept the idea that men and women representing the government and wearing military gear and driving military vehicles can point military weapons at people assembling in the streets to express themselves, or at people in their homes in a neighborhood where fugitives are supposedly hiding. These are clear violations of natural law in that such actions basically declare that force can be used against citizens whenever it is convenient for the government to say there is a need to do so, an idea which Spooner eloquently demolishes in pages 27 and 28 of his text against the Fugitive Slave Acts. In a passage labeled "Section IV" of his 1882 treatise on Natural Law, Spooner declares that the rights belonging to every human being by the unchangeable principle of justice "necessarily remain with him [or her] during life," and although these rights are "capable of being trampled upon" they are nevertheless "incapable of being blotted out, extinguished, annihilated, or separated from" each and every human being, and that there is no authority high enough to simply declare them null or void. False narratives have even apparently convinced some people that it is somehow excusable to cover up evidence of the potentially harmful effects of vaccines on certain children in order to support "herd immunity." All of the above examples, along with the many other violations of natural law currently taking place, are enabled and excused by a variety of false realities or false narratives, created and maintained in order to lend an air of legitimacy to these violations. So were many other horrendous violations of natural law which were enabled by false narratives and illusions throughout history, including the enslavement of Africans which Spooner argued against in the 1850s, to the destruction of Native American tribes in the western US after the end of the US Civil War and the seizure of their lands and their confinement to reservations or "agencies," to the seizure of the Hawaiian Islands and the Philippines in the years after that, and on and on right up to the present. All of the above examples were enabled by lies, illusions, and false narratives or false realities. For more on breaking through illusions and false realities, and creating new realities, see for example this previous post entitled "Jon Rappoport's talk on the trickster-god and creating reality." It is one of Lysander Spooner's singular contributions that he perceived and forcefully argued that a criminal "law" is no law at all, and that men and women have the right and the duty to treat it as such, and to inform others of their right to do the same. Putting something on paper doesn't make it a "law" -- even if it has been adorned with all the necessary stamps and signatures. As Spooner alludes in the writings linked above, the US Constitution as originally designed, and especially the Bill of Rights as originally conceived, were designed to safeguard natural-law rights in many ways, and to the extent that Schoolhouse Rock taught those principles to a new generation in the 1970s, it can be commended. Perhaps Spooner's arguments about an illegal law being no law at all could not really be expected to be squeezed into the "I'm Just a Bill" song. But Lysander Spooner's arguments deserve to be brought into the modern era, in much the same way that the creators of Schoolhouse Rock tried to speak to the younger generation of the 1970s using the language and imagery of the 1970s. Spooner's arguments on behalf of the individual's rights under natural law -- rights which could never be abridged by any authority -- and his arguments against the creation of arbitrary "laws" which everyone has to obey just because a legislature or a president gave them the title of a "law" deserve examination, consideration, and thoughtful debate today more than ever. And the false narratives supporting so-called laws which supposedly authorize some people to use violence against others, or to threaten violence against others, or to take away the freedom of others when those others have not done anything to harm anyone else's persons or property, must be shown to be the form of mind control that they are. No individuals or groups can give themselves the right to violate natural law and in doing so to infringe on anyone else's rights, simply by writing something down on a "sad little scrap of paper."

<urn:uuid:17474726-e53e-48c9-a980-028439f26526>

CC-MAIN-2018-13

http://www.starmythworld.com/mathisencorollary/2014/09/does-writing-something-on-piece-of.html

s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2018-13/segments/1521257647892.89/warc/CC-MAIN-20180322151300-20180322171300-00710.warc.gz

en

<urn:uuid:17474726-e53e-48c9-a980-028439f26526>_55

But Lysander Spooner's arguments deserve to be brought into the modern era, in much the same way that the creators of Schoolhouse Rock tried to speak to the younger generation of the 1970s using the language and imagery of the 1970s.

"Whew! You sure gotta climb a lot of steps to get to the Capitol Building here in Washington. Well I wonder who that sad little scrap of paper is?" And with those words began one of my childhood favorite Schoolhouse Rock videos, which used to be on television back in the early 1970s when I wasn't really old enough to have any idea what exactly they were all about, or why they would sometimes show up in between episodes of Superfriends, Speed Racer, or Sigmund and the Sea Monsters. In I'm just a bill," we witness the progress by which "that sad little scrap of paper" receives a fancy seal and a president's signature and becomes a law ("He signed ya, Bill: Now you're a Law!"). Although the video does an admirable job depicting some of the checks and balances contained in the US Constitution, through which the members of both houses of the legislature must agree to send the bill forward to the executive branch for final approval before any proposed bill is signed into law, it does tend to convey the impression that any "good idea" can be transformed into "a Law" through the magical process of being debated by important-looking men in impressive-looking buildings with lots of steps and Greek columns, on top of high hills (and filled with long rows of impassive US Marines in dress blue uniforms, and statues of distinguished statesmen from previous generations), signed by the president using a fountain pen, and affixed with a shiny-looking seal with a ribbon. Nineteenth-century abolitionist, legal scholar and philosopher Lysander Spooner (1808 - 1887) would vehemently disagree that something becomes "a law" just because it goes through the above process and receives a president's signature and a fancy stamp. In fact, he published a treatise in 1850 entitled A Defence for Fugitive Slaves against the Acts of Congress of February 12, 1793 and September 18, 1850, in which he argued that an illegal law is no law at all, and confers no obligation on anyone to obey it, nor any authority to anyone desiring to enforce it. He begins his treatise with the complete copy of each of the two acts in question, both of which were considered "law" in 1850, compelling men or women who knew of a "fugitive slave" to help catch that "fugitive slave" or face penalties including fines and imprisonment (the term "slave" is put in quotation marks here because Spooner argues that no person can ever own another person, and that there actually is no such thing as a legal slave or the legal condition of slavery, all so-called "laws" which make one person the property of another being illegal and criminal). Those two so-called laws (the Fugitive Slave Act of 1793 and the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850) were both signed by the presidents of their day, George Washington in the first instance and Millard Fillmore in the second (they also bear the signatures of the respective Speakers of the House and Presidents of the Senate). But these signatures do not make them true laws, according to Spooner's arguments. Spooner demonstrates that holding anyone else as property is a crime, and that putting something on paper, stamping it with fancy seals, embellishing it with fancy legal language, and endorsing it with the signatures of people bearing impressive titles does not make it into law: it's still just a "sad little scrap of paper" in his eyes. He even goes so far as to say that men and women have the right to resist illegal laws, in what is undoubtedly among the most important sections of his argument, found on pages 27 and 28. There, he powerfully dismantles the counter-arguments that he anticipates from those who would argue that once something is "a law," it must be obeyed until it is repealed. If it were really true that an illegal or unconstitutional law must be obeyed until repealed, he reasons, then "there would therefore be no difference at all between a constitutional and an unconstitutional law, in respect to their binding force; and that would be equivalent to abolishing the constitution, and giving to the government unlimited power" (28). Those who would disagree with Lysander Spooner on this point are invited to participate in a mental experiment, in which they imagine that the president has signed a law saying that if you in any way hinder the search for an escaped slave, or in any way assist a person who has been designated a "slave" and who has run away and is hiding from the authorities, then you yourself are a criminal and can be subject to enormous fines and imprisonment. Note that this is not just a hypothetical scenario: the first and the thirteenth presidents of the United States each signed such a proposition into "law." Today, nobody reading this blog would likely argue that they would feel a moral duty to obey such a "law," or that they would have to actually support it until such time as they could eventually get it repealed through the same arduous process depicted in the Schoolhouse Rock video shown above. Nearly every man or woman would agree with Spooner that the institution of slavery and "laws" enforcing one person's ability to "own" another are not laws but rather outrageous crimes, and would reject the notion that writing such a "law" down on a piece of paper, stamping it with a pretty seal and adding some flowery signatures suddenly turns it into something that must be willingly and voluntarily obeyed until it can be debated and eventually repealed. Writing something on a piece of paper does not make it a law. But, if this is true, then what does make something a law? Lysander Spooner argued that the actions of men and women cannot actually make anything a law, but that there is already an immutable or unchangeable universal law which he called "Natural Law" or the "Science of Justice." He believed that human society should only enforce natural law, and not dream up additional or "artificial" laws, and that trying to add to or subtract from the natural law is as foolish as trying to add to or subtract from other natural laws, such as the law of gravity. He argued that men and women could voluntarily band together to help ensure compliance with this natural law among their group, but that they could not compel others to join that voluntary association. Even within such a voluntary association, he believed that people or groups could only rightly compel compliance with the natural law, which was generally extremely simple and basically entailed the command to "live honestly, hurt no one, and give everyone his or her due." In an 1882 publication entitled Natural Law; or The Science of Justice, Spooner set out to explain the concept of natural law. In it, he made a distinction between those things that everyone has a legal duty to either do or to refrain from doing, and which others can and must compel in others, and those things which everyone has a moral duty to do but which must be left up to each person's own judgment and which no one has the right or duty to compel. Below is a table based upon Spooner's 1882 text, generally following the order and wording of his argument: The left column (labeled "Legal Duty" and highlighted in yellow), in Spooner's view, constitutes those things which are part of the natural law, and can actually be the only things which anyone can rightfully use force to uphold. He says that everyone has a duty to refrain from injuring others, and that force may and must be used when someone sees someone else in the act of injuring someone else. Spooner further argues in that 1882 text that nearly everyone understands these natural law prohibitions and duties before they are even old enough to know that "three and three are six, or five and five ten" (9). The right column (labeled "Moral Duty" and highlighted in green), in Spooner's view, constitutes those things which we do have a moral duty to perform, but which no one else can compel us to do: we must judge the extent to which we are able to do those things, and how we wish to best accomplish them when we do decide to do them. Thus, in Spooner's view, any so-called law that goes beyond the legal duties in the left column (or, worse yet, directly contradicts and violates those legal duties, as did the Fugitive Slave Acts) is actually no law at all and it can and must be disobeyed as illegal and criminal, regardless of whether it was written down on paper using legal-sounding language and passed by men and women in fancy buildings and stamped with fancy stamps and inscribed with fancy signatures. At this point, the reader may be thinking that all of this is very nice, but what on earth does it have to do with the general subject matter covered in this blog? The answer is: everything. Because, as insightful thinkers such as Mark Passio have articulated, violations of natural law are so contrary to our innate understanding of right and wrong (remember that Spooner says we know it before we even know that 3 + 3 = 6) that artificial laws which violate natural law must always be dressed up with various symbols and word-formulas designed to convey legitimacy, and reinforced by systems of mind control by which men and women who should know that those violations are immoral can somehow be made to believe that those violations of natural law are instead right and good and deserving of support. Institutionalized violations of natural law are nearly always accompanied by powerful forms of illusion, or the creation of "false realities" that enable those violations to appear legitimate, and to get people to go along with them. Therefore, seeing through these false realities is of absolutely primary importance. This blog primarily examines false realities which can be seen operating all around us, including in the realm of conventional history as taught in all the institutions of academia and reinforced by the organs of the conventional media (see for example "Piercing the fog of deception that hides the contours of history" and also the two short videos entitled "The importance of challenging false narratives"). These false realities or false narratives which cause people to accept gross violations of natural law are operating today with just as much force as they were operating in Spooner's day -- perhaps even more so. False narratives assist in getting people to accept the premise that so-called "laws" permitting government surveillance of individual men and women at virtually any time and place are legitimate (see here and here). This is a violation of natural law in that it enables hidden enforcers and observers to treat individuals as criminals on the suspicion that they might do something to harm others, elevating some to the status of "prison guards" and demoting everyone else to the status of prisoners under constant suspicion and surveillance. False narratives convince people to accept the idea that men and women can and should be locked up and denied their freedom for possessing certain plants or mushrooms known to induce a state of ecstasy. This is a violation of natural law in that it uses force to prohibit behavior that in no way harms the person or property of another or infringes on another's rights. False narratives convince people to accept the idea that men and women representing the government and wearing military gear and driving military vehicles can point military weapons at people assembling in the streets to express themselves, or at people in their homes in a neighborhood where fugitives are supposedly hiding. These are clear violations of natural law in that such actions basically declare that force can be used against citizens whenever it is convenient for the government to say there is a need to do so, an idea which Spooner eloquently demolishes in pages 27 and 28 of his text against the Fugitive Slave Acts. In a passage labeled "Section IV" of his 1882 treatise on Natural Law, Spooner declares that the rights belonging to every human being by the unchangeable principle of justice "necessarily remain with him [or her] during life," and although these rights are "capable of being trampled upon" they are nevertheless "incapable of being blotted out, extinguished, annihilated, or separated from" each and every human being, and that there is no authority high enough to simply declare them null or void. False narratives have even apparently convinced some people that it is somehow excusable to cover up evidence of the potentially harmful effects of vaccines on certain children in order to support "herd immunity." All of the above examples, along with the many other violations of natural law currently taking place, are enabled and excused by a variety of false realities or false narratives, created and maintained in order to lend an air of legitimacy to these violations. So were many other horrendous violations of natural law which were enabled by false narratives and illusions throughout history, including the enslavement of Africans which Spooner argued against in the 1850s, to the destruction of Native American tribes in the western US after the end of the US Civil War and the seizure of their lands and their confinement to reservations or "agencies," to the seizure of the Hawaiian Islands and the Philippines in the years after that, and on and on right up to the present. All of the above examples were enabled by lies, illusions, and false narratives or false realities. For more on breaking through illusions and false realities, and creating new realities, see for example this previous post entitled "Jon Rappoport's talk on the trickster-god and creating reality." It is one of Lysander Spooner's singular contributions that he perceived and forcefully argued that a criminal "law" is no law at all, and that men and women have the right and the duty to treat it as such, and to inform others of their right to do the same. Putting something on paper doesn't make it a "law" -- even if it has been adorned with all the necessary stamps and signatures. As Spooner alludes in the writings linked above, the US Constitution as originally designed, and especially the Bill of Rights as originally conceived, were designed to safeguard natural-law rights in many ways, and to the extent that Schoolhouse Rock taught those principles to a new generation in the 1970s, it can be commended. Perhaps Spooner's arguments about an illegal law being no law at all could not really be expected to be squeezed into the "I'm Just a Bill" song. But Lysander Spooner's arguments deserve to be brought into the modern era, in much the same way that the creators of Schoolhouse Rock tried to speak to the younger generation of the 1970s using the language and imagery of the 1970s. Spooner's arguments on behalf of the individual's rights under natural law -- rights which could never be abridged by any authority -- and his arguments against the creation of arbitrary "laws" which everyone has to obey just because a legislature or a president gave them the title of a "law" deserve examination, consideration, and thoughtful debate today more than ever. And the false narratives supporting so-called laws which supposedly authorize some people to use violence against others, or to threaten violence against others, or to take away the freedom of others when those others have not done anything to harm anyone else's persons or property, must be shown to be the form of mind control that they are. No individuals or groups can give themselves the right to violate natural law and in doing so to infringe on anyone else's rights, simply by writing something down on a "sad little scrap of paper."

<urn:uuid:17474726-e53e-48c9-a980-028439f26526>

CC-MAIN-2018-13

http://www.starmythworld.com/mathisencorollary/2014/09/does-writing-something-on-piece-of.html

s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2018-13/segments/1521257647892.89/warc/CC-MAIN-20180322151300-20180322171300-00710.warc.gz

en

<urn:uuid:17474726-e53e-48c9-a980-028439f26526>_56

Spooner's arguments on behalf of the individual's rights under natural law -- rights which could never be abridged by any authority -- and his arguments against the creation of arbitrary "laws" which everyone has to obey just because a legislature or a president gave them the title of a "law" deserve examination, consideration, and thoughtful debate today more than ever.

"Whew! You sure gotta climb a lot of steps to get to the Capitol Building here in Washington. Well I wonder who that sad little scrap of paper is?" And with those words began one of my childhood favorite Schoolhouse Rock videos, which used to be on television back in the early 1970s when I wasn't really old enough to have any idea what exactly they were all about, or why they would sometimes show up in between episodes of Superfriends, Speed Racer, or Sigmund and the Sea Monsters. In I'm just a bill," we witness the progress by which "that sad little scrap of paper" receives a fancy seal and a president's signature and becomes a law ("He signed ya, Bill: Now you're a Law!"). Although the video does an admirable job depicting some of the checks and balances contained in the US Constitution, through which the members of both houses of the legislature must agree to send the bill forward to the executive branch for final approval before any proposed bill is signed into law, it does tend to convey the impression that any "good idea" can be transformed into "a Law" through the magical process of being debated by important-looking men in impressive-looking buildings with lots of steps and Greek columns, on top of high hills (and filled with long rows of impassive US Marines in dress blue uniforms, and statues of distinguished statesmen from previous generations), signed by the president using a fountain pen, and affixed with a shiny-looking seal with a ribbon. Nineteenth-century abolitionist, legal scholar and philosopher Lysander Spooner (1808 - 1887) would vehemently disagree that something becomes "a law" just because it goes through the above process and receives a president's signature and a fancy stamp. In fact, he published a treatise in 1850 entitled A Defence for Fugitive Slaves against the Acts of Congress of February 12, 1793 and September 18, 1850, in which he argued that an illegal law is no law at all, and confers no obligation on anyone to obey it, nor any authority to anyone desiring to enforce it. He begins his treatise with the complete copy of each of the two acts in question, both of which were considered "law" in 1850, compelling men or women who knew of a "fugitive slave" to help catch that "fugitive slave" or face penalties including fines and imprisonment (the term "slave" is put in quotation marks here because Spooner argues that no person can ever own another person, and that there actually is no such thing as a legal slave or the legal condition of slavery, all so-called "laws" which make one person the property of another being illegal and criminal). Those two so-called laws (the Fugitive Slave Act of 1793 and the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850) were both signed by the presidents of their day, George Washington in the first instance and Millard Fillmore in the second (they also bear the signatures of the respective Speakers of the House and Presidents of the Senate). But these signatures do not make them true laws, according to Spooner's arguments. Spooner demonstrates that holding anyone else as property is a crime, and that putting something on paper, stamping it with fancy seals, embellishing it with fancy legal language, and endorsing it with the signatures of people bearing impressive titles does not make it into law: it's still just a "sad little scrap of paper" in his eyes. He even goes so far as to say that men and women have the right to resist illegal laws, in what is undoubtedly among the most important sections of his argument, found on pages 27 and 28. There, he powerfully dismantles the counter-arguments that he anticipates from those who would argue that once something is "a law," it must be obeyed until it is repealed. If it were really true that an illegal or unconstitutional law must be obeyed until repealed, he reasons, then "there would therefore be no difference at all between a constitutional and an unconstitutional law, in respect to their binding force; and that would be equivalent to abolishing the constitution, and giving to the government unlimited power" (28). Those who would disagree with Lysander Spooner on this point are invited to participate in a mental experiment, in which they imagine that the president has signed a law saying that if you in any way hinder the search for an escaped slave, or in any way assist a person who has been designated a "slave" and who has run away and is hiding from the authorities, then you yourself are a criminal and can be subject to enormous fines and imprisonment. Note that this is not just a hypothetical scenario: the first and the thirteenth presidents of the United States each signed such a proposition into "law." Today, nobody reading this blog would likely argue that they would feel a moral duty to obey such a "law," or that they would have to actually support it until such time as they could eventually get it repealed through the same arduous process depicted in the Schoolhouse Rock video shown above. Nearly every man or woman would agree with Spooner that the institution of slavery and "laws" enforcing one person's ability to "own" another are not laws but rather outrageous crimes, and would reject the notion that writing such a "law" down on a piece of paper, stamping it with a pretty seal and adding some flowery signatures suddenly turns it into something that must be willingly and voluntarily obeyed until it can be debated and eventually repealed. Writing something on a piece of paper does not make it a law. But, if this is true, then what does make something a law? Lysander Spooner argued that the actions of men and women cannot actually make anything a law, but that there is already an immutable or unchangeable universal law which he called "Natural Law" or the "Science of Justice." He believed that human society should only enforce natural law, and not dream up additional or "artificial" laws, and that trying to add to or subtract from the natural law is as foolish as trying to add to or subtract from other natural laws, such as the law of gravity. He argued that men and women could voluntarily band together to help ensure compliance with this natural law among their group, but that they could not compel others to join that voluntary association. Even within such a voluntary association, he believed that people or groups could only rightly compel compliance with the natural law, which was generally extremely simple and basically entailed the command to "live honestly, hurt no one, and give everyone his or her due." In an 1882 publication entitled Natural Law; or The Science of Justice, Spooner set out to explain the concept of natural law. In it, he made a distinction between those things that everyone has a legal duty to either do or to refrain from doing, and which others can and must compel in others, and those things which everyone has a moral duty to do but which must be left up to each person's own judgment and which no one has the right or duty to compel. Below is a table based upon Spooner's 1882 text, generally following the order and wording of his argument: The left column (labeled "Legal Duty" and highlighted in yellow), in Spooner's view, constitutes those things which are part of the natural law, and can actually be the only things which anyone can rightfully use force to uphold. He says that everyone has a duty to refrain from injuring others, and that force may and must be used when someone sees someone else in the act of injuring someone else. Spooner further argues in that 1882 text that nearly everyone understands these natural law prohibitions and duties before they are even old enough to know that "three and three are six, or five and five ten" (9). The right column (labeled "Moral Duty" and highlighted in green), in Spooner's view, constitutes those things which we do have a moral duty to perform, but which no one else can compel us to do: we must judge the extent to which we are able to do those things, and how we wish to best accomplish them when we do decide to do them. Thus, in Spooner's view, any so-called law that goes beyond the legal duties in the left column (or, worse yet, directly contradicts and violates those legal duties, as did the Fugitive Slave Acts) is actually no law at all and it can and must be disobeyed as illegal and criminal, regardless of whether it was written down on paper using legal-sounding language and passed by men and women in fancy buildings and stamped with fancy stamps and inscribed with fancy signatures. At this point, the reader may be thinking that all of this is very nice, but what on earth does it have to do with the general subject matter covered in this blog? The answer is: everything. Because, as insightful thinkers such as Mark Passio have articulated, violations of natural law are so contrary to our innate understanding of right and wrong (remember that Spooner says we know it before we even know that 3 + 3 = 6) that artificial laws which violate natural law must always be dressed up with various symbols and word-formulas designed to convey legitimacy, and reinforced by systems of mind control by which men and women who should know that those violations are immoral can somehow be made to believe that those violations of natural law are instead right and good and deserving of support. Institutionalized violations of natural law are nearly always accompanied by powerful forms of illusion, or the creation of "false realities" that enable those violations to appear legitimate, and to get people to go along with them. Therefore, seeing through these false realities is of absolutely primary importance. This blog primarily examines false realities which can be seen operating all around us, including in the realm of conventional history as taught in all the institutions of academia and reinforced by the organs of the conventional media (see for example "Piercing the fog of deception that hides the contours of history" and also the two short videos entitled "The importance of challenging false narratives"). These false realities or false narratives which cause people to accept gross violations of natural law are operating today with just as much force as they were operating in Spooner's day -- perhaps even more so. False narratives assist in getting people to accept the premise that so-called "laws" permitting government surveillance of individual men and women at virtually any time and place are legitimate (see here and here). This is a violation of natural law in that it enables hidden enforcers and observers to treat individuals as criminals on the suspicion that they might do something to harm others, elevating some to the status of "prison guards" and demoting everyone else to the status of prisoners under constant suspicion and surveillance. False narratives convince people to accept the idea that men and women can and should be locked up and denied their freedom for possessing certain plants or mushrooms known to induce a state of ecstasy. This is a violation of natural law in that it uses force to prohibit behavior that in no way harms the person or property of another or infringes on another's rights. False narratives convince people to accept the idea that men and women representing the government and wearing military gear and driving military vehicles can point military weapons at people assembling in the streets to express themselves, or at people in their homes in a neighborhood where fugitives are supposedly hiding. These are clear violations of natural law in that such actions basically declare that force can be used against citizens whenever it is convenient for the government to say there is a need to do so, an idea which Spooner eloquently demolishes in pages 27 and 28 of his text against the Fugitive Slave Acts. In a passage labeled "Section IV" of his 1882 treatise on Natural Law, Spooner declares that the rights belonging to every human being by the unchangeable principle of justice "necessarily remain with him [or her] during life," and although these rights are "capable of being trampled upon" they are nevertheless "incapable of being blotted out, extinguished, annihilated, or separated from" each and every human being, and that there is no authority high enough to simply declare them null or void. False narratives have even apparently convinced some people that it is somehow excusable to cover up evidence of the potentially harmful effects of vaccines on certain children in order to support "herd immunity." All of the above examples, along with the many other violations of natural law currently taking place, are enabled and excused by a variety of false realities or false narratives, created and maintained in order to lend an air of legitimacy to these violations. So were many other horrendous violations of natural law which were enabled by false narratives and illusions throughout history, including the enslavement of Africans which Spooner argued against in the 1850s, to the destruction of Native American tribes in the western US after the end of the US Civil War and the seizure of their lands and their confinement to reservations or "agencies," to the seizure of the Hawaiian Islands and the Philippines in the years after that, and on and on right up to the present. All of the above examples were enabled by lies, illusions, and false narratives or false realities. For more on breaking through illusions and false realities, and creating new realities, see for example this previous post entitled "Jon Rappoport's talk on the trickster-god and creating reality." It is one of Lysander Spooner's singular contributions that he perceived and forcefully argued that a criminal "law" is no law at all, and that men and women have the right and the duty to treat it as such, and to inform others of their right to do the same. Putting something on paper doesn't make it a "law" -- even if it has been adorned with all the necessary stamps and signatures. As Spooner alludes in the writings linked above, the US Constitution as originally designed, and especially the Bill of Rights as originally conceived, were designed to safeguard natural-law rights in many ways, and to the extent that Schoolhouse Rock taught those principles to a new generation in the 1970s, it can be commended. Perhaps Spooner's arguments about an illegal law being no law at all could not really be expected to be squeezed into the "I'm Just a Bill" song. But Lysander Spooner's arguments deserve to be brought into the modern era, in much the same way that the creators of Schoolhouse Rock tried to speak to the younger generation of the 1970s using the language and imagery of the 1970s. Spooner's arguments on behalf of the individual's rights under natural law -- rights which could never be abridged by any authority -- and his arguments against the creation of arbitrary "laws" which everyone has to obey just because a legislature or a president gave them the title of a "law" deserve examination, consideration, and thoughtful debate today more than ever. And the false narratives supporting so-called laws which supposedly authorize some people to use violence against others, or to threaten violence against others, or to take away the freedom of others when those others have not done anything to harm anyone else's persons or property, must be shown to be the form of mind control that they are. No individuals or groups can give themselves the right to violate natural law and in doing so to infringe on anyone else's rights, simply by writing something down on a "sad little scrap of paper."

<urn:uuid:17474726-e53e-48c9-a980-028439f26526>

CC-MAIN-2018-13

http://www.starmythworld.com/mathisencorollary/2014/09/does-writing-something-on-piece-of.html

s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2018-13/segments/1521257647892.89/warc/CC-MAIN-20180322151300-20180322171300-00710.warc.gz

en

<urn:uuid:17474726-e53e-48c9-a980-028439f26526>_57

And the false narratives supporting so-called laws which supposedly authorize some people to use violence against others, or to threaten violence against others, or to take away the freedom of others when those others have not done anything to harm anyone else's persons or property, must be shown to be the form of mind control that they are.

"Whew! You sure gotta climb a lot of steps to get to the Capitol Building here in Washington. Well I wonder who that sad little scrap of paper is?" And with those words began one of my childhood favorite Schoolhouse Rock videos, which used to be on television back in the early 1970s when I wasn't really old enough to have any idea what exactly they were all about, or why they would sometimes show up in between episodes of Superfriends, Speed Racer, or Sigmund and the Sea Monsters. In I'm just a bill," we witness the progress by which "that sad little scrap of paper" receives a fancy seal and a president's signature and becomes a law ("He signed ya, Bill: Now you're a Law!"). Although the video does an admirable job depicting some of the checks and balances contained in the US Constitution, through which the members of both houses of the legislature must agree to send the bill forward to the executive branch for final approval before any proposed bill is signed into law, it does tend to convey the impression that any "good idea" can be transformed into "a Law" through the magical process of being debated by important-looking men in impressive-looking buildings with lots of steps and Greek columns, on top of high hills (and filled with long rows of impassive US Marines in dress blue uniforms, and statues of distinguished statesmen from previous generations), signed by the president using a fountain pen, and affixed with a shiny-looking seal with a ribbon. Nineteenth-century abolitionist, legal scholar and philosopher Lysander Spooner (1808 - 1887) would vehemently disagree that something becomes "a law" just because it goes through the above process and receives a president's signature and a fancy stamp. In fact, he published a treatise in 1850 entitled A Defence for Fugitive Slaves against the Acts of Congress of February 12, 1793 and September 18, 1850, in which he argued that an illegal law is no law at all, and confers no obligation on anyone to obey it, nor any authority to anyone desiring to enforce it. He begins his treatise with the complete copy of each of the two acts in question, both of which were considered "law" in 1850, compelling men or women who knew of a "fugitive slave" to help catch that "fugitive slave" or face penalties including fines and imprisonment (the term "slave" is put in quotation marks here because Spooner argues that no person can ever own another person, and that there actually is no such thing as a legal slave or the legal condition of slavery, all so-called "laws" which make one person the property of another being illegal and criminal). Those two so-called laws (the Fugitive Slave Act of 1793 and the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850) were both signed by the presidents of their day, George Washington in the first instance and Millard Fillmore in the second (they also bear the signatures of the respective Speakers of the House and Presidents of the Senate). But these signatures do not make them true laws, according to Spooner's arguments. Spooner demonstrates that holding anyone else as property is a crime, and that putting something on paper, stamping it with fancy seals, embellishing it with fancy legal language, and endorsing it with the signatures of people bearing impressive titles does not make it into law: it's still just a "sad little scrap of paper" in his eyes. He even goes so far as to say that men and women have the right to resist illegal laws, in what is undoubtedly among the most important sections of his argument, found on pages 27 and 28. There, he powerfully dismantles the counter-arguments that he anticipates from those who would argue that once something is "a law," it must be obeyed until it is repealed. If it were really true that an illegal or unconstitutional law must be obeyed until repealed, he reasons, then "there would therefore be no difference at all between a constitutional and an unconstitutional law, in respect to their binding force; and that would be equivalent to abolishing the constitution, and giving to the government unlimited power" (28). Those who would disagree with Lysander Spooner on this point are invited to participate in a mental experiment, in which they imagine that the president has signed a law saying that if you in any way hinder the search for an escaped slave, or in any way assist a person who has been designated a "slave" and who has run away and is hiding from the authorities, then you yourself are a criminal and can be subject to enormous fines and imprisonment. Note that this is not just a hypothetical scenario: the first and the thirteenth presidents of the United States each signed such a proposition into "law." Today, nobody reading this blog would likely argue that they would feel a moral duty to obey such a "law," or that they would have to actually support it until such time as they could eventually get it repealed through the same arduous process depicted in the Schoolhouse Rock video shown above. Nearly every man or woman would agree with Spooner that the institution of slavery and "laws" enforcing one person's ability to "own" another are not laws but rather outrageous crimes, and would reject the notion that writing such a "law" down on a piece of paper, stamping it with a pretty seal and adding some flowery signatures suddenly turns it into something that must be willingly and voluntarily obeyed until it can be debated and eventually repealed. Writing something on a piece of paper does not make it a law. But, if this is true, then what does make something a law? Lysander Spooner argued that the actions of men and women cannot actually make anything a law, but that there is already an immutable or unchangeable universal law which he called "Natural Law" or the "Science of Justice." He believed that human society should only enforce natural law, and not dream up additional or "artificial" laws, and that trying to add to or subtract from the natural law is as foolish as trying to add to or subtract from other natural laws, such as the law of gravity. He argued that men and women could voluntarily band together to help ensure compliance with this natural law among their group, but that they could not compel others to join that voluntary association. Even within such a voluntary association, he believed that people or groups could only rightly compel compliance with the natural law, which was generally extremely simple and basically entailed the command to "live honestly, hurt no one, and give everyone his or her due." In an 1882 publication entitled Natural Law; or The Science of Justice, Spooner set out to explain the concept of natural law. In it, he made a distinction between those things that everyone has a legal duty to either do or to refrain from doing, and which others can and must compel in others, and those things which everyone has a moral duty to do but which must be left up to each person's own judgment and which no one has the right or duty to compel. Below is a table based upon Spooner's 1882 text, generally following the order and wording of his argument: The left column (labeled "Legal Duty" and highlighted in yellow), in Spooner's view, constitutes those things which are part of the natural law, and can actually be the only things which anyone can rightfully use force to uphold. He says that everyone has a duty to refrain from injuring others, and that force may and must be used when someone sees someone else in the act of injuring someone else. Spooner further argues in that 1882 text that nearly everyone understands these natural law prohibitions and duties before they are even old enough to know that "three and three are six, or five and five ten" (9). The right column (labeled "Moral Duty" and highlighted in green), in Spooner's view, constitutes those things which we do have a moral duty to perform, but which no one else can compel us to do: we must judge the extent to which we are able to do those things, and how we wish to best accomplish them when we do decide to do them. Thus, in Spooner's view, any so-called law that goes beyond the legal duties in the left column (or, worse yet, directly contradicts and violates those legal duties, as did the Fugitive Slave Acts) is actually no law at all and it can and must be disobeyed as illegal and criminal, regardless of whether it was written down on paper using legal-sounding language and passed by men and women in fancy buildings and stamped with fancy stamps and inscribed with fancy signatures. At this point, the reader may be thinking that all of this is very nice, but what on earth does it have to do with the general subject matter covered in this blog? The answer is: everything. Because, as insightful thinkers such as Mark Passio have articulated, violations of natural law are so contrary to our innate understanding of right and wrong (remember that Spooner says we know it before we even know that 3 + 3 = 6) that artificial laws which violate natural law must always be dressed up with various symbols and word-formulas designed to convey legitimacy, and reinforced by systems of mind control by which men and women who should know that those violations are immoral can somehow be made to believe that those violations of natural law are instead right and good and deserving of support. Institutionalized violations of natural law are nearly always accompanied by powerful forms of illusion, or the creation of "false realities" that enable those violations to appear legitimate, and to get people to go along with them. Therefore, seeing through these false realities is of absolutely primary importance. This blog primarily examines false realities which can be seen operating all around us, including in the realm of conventional history as taught in all the institutions of academia and reinforced by the organs of the conventional media (see for example "Piercing the fog of deception that hides the contours of history" and also the two short videos entitled "The importance of challenging false narratives"). These false realities or false narratives which cause people to accept gross violations of natural law are operating today with just as much force as they were operating in Spooner's day -- perhaps even more so. False narratives assist in getting people to accept the premise that so-called "laws" permitting government surveillance of individual men and women at virtually any time and place are legitimate (see here and here). This is a violation of natural law in that it enables hidden enforcers and observers to treat individuals as criminals on the suspicion that they might do something to harm others, elevating some to the status of "prison guards" and demoting everyone else to the status of prisoners under constant suspicion and surveillance. False narratives convince people to accept the idea that men and women can and should be locked up and denied their freedom for possessing certain plants or mushrooms known to induce a state of ecstasy. This is a violation of natural law in that it uses force to prohibit behavior that in no way harms the person or property of another or infringes on another's rights. False narratives convince people to accept the idea that men and women representing the government and wearing military gear and driving military vehicles can point military weapons at people assembling in the streets to express themselves, or at people in their homes in a neighborhood where fugitives are supposedly hiding. These are clear violations of natural law in that such actions basically declare that force can be used against citizens whenever it is convenient for the government to say there is a need to do so, an idea which Spooner eloquently demolishes in pages 27 and 28 of his text against the Fugitive Slave Acts. In a passage labeled "Section IV" of his 1882 treatise on Natural Law, Spooner declares that the rights belonging to every human being by the unchangeable principle of justice "necessarily remain with him [or her] during life," and although these rights are "capable of being trampled upon" they are nevertheless "incapable of being blotted out, extinguished, annihilated, or separated from" each and every human being, and that there is no authority high enough to simply declare them null or void. False narratives have even apparently convinced some people that it is somehow excusable to cover up evidence of the potentially harmful effects of vaccines on certain children in order to support "herd immunity." All of the above examples, along with the many other violations of natural law currently taking place, are enabled and excused by a variety of false realities or false narratives, created and maintained in order to lend an air of legitimacy to these violations. So were many other horrendous violations of natural law which were enabled by false narratives and illusions throughout history, including the enslavement of Africans which Spooner argued against in the 1850s, to the destruction of Native American tribes in the western US after the end of the US Civil War and the seizure of their lands and their confinement to reservations or "agencies," to the seizure of the Hawaiian Islands and the Philippines in the years after that, and on and on right up to the present. All of the above examples were enabled by lies, illusions, and false narratives or false realities. For more on breaking through illusions and false realities, and creating new realities, see for example this previous post entitled "Jon Rappoport's talk on the trickster-god and creating reality." It is one of Lysander Spooner's singular contributions that he perceived and forcefully argued that a criminal "law" is no law at all, and that men and women have the right and the duty to treat it as such, and to inform others of their right to do the same. Putting something on paper doesn't make it a "law" -- even if it has been adorned with all the necessary stamps and signatures. As Spooner alludes in the writings linked above, the US Constitution as originally designed, and especially the Bill of Rights as originally conceived, were designed to safeguard natural-law rights in many ways, and to the extent that Schoolhouse Rock taught those principles to a new generation in the 1970s, it can be commended. Perhaps Spooner's arguments about an illegal law being no law at all could not really be expected to be squeezed into the "I'm Just a Bill" song. But Lysander Spooner's arguments deserve to be brought into the modern era, in much the same way that the creators of Schoolhouse Rock tried to speak to the younger generation of the 1970s using the language and imagery of the 1970s. Spooner's arguments on behalf of the individual's rights under natural law -- rights which could never be abridged by any authority -- and his arguments against the creation of arbitrary "laws" which everyone has to obey just because a legislature or a president gave them the title of a "law" deserve examination, consideration, and thoughtful debate today more than ever. And the false narratives supporting so-called laws which supposedly authorize some people to use violence against others, or to threaten violence against others, or to take away the freedom of others when those others have not done anything to harm anyone else's persons or property, must be shown to be the form of mind control that they are. No individuals or groups can give themselves the right to violate natural law and in doing so to infringe on anyone else's rights, simply by writing something down on a "sad little scrap of paper."

<urn:uuid:17474726-e53e-48c9-a980-028439f26526>

CC-MAIN-2018-13

http://www.starmythworld.com/mathisencorollary/2014/09/does-writing-something-on-piece-of.html

s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2018-13/segments/1521257647892.89/warc/CC-MAIN-20180322151300-20180322171300-00710.warc.gz

en

<urn:uuid:17474726-e53e-48c9-a980-028439f26526>_58

No individuals or groups can give themselves the right to violate natural law and in doing so to infringe on anyone else's rights, simply by writing something down on a "sad little scrap of paper."

Most likely, if you are passionate about photography (and I assume you are because you are reading the Canon Digital Learning Center’s blog), you have come across High Dynamic Range (HDR) photography. HDR photography is the process of taking multiple exposures of the same high-contrast scene at different levels of brightness, then combining them into one image. This single image with a wider range of detail, from the darkest to the brightest areas, is typically impossible with a single exposure. HDR photography is most often used to produce photos that mimic what the human eye is able to see. Now, I say “most often” because there is also a fun and creative side to HDR photography that allows for a lot interesting experimentation, something worth trying out. Back to the actual purpose of this blog entry: to help you get started with HDR photography. So what do you need, besides a camera and a lens, you might ask? - Tripod: Tripods are not absolutely necessary, but when you are starting off, it will make your life a lot easier. With small lens apertures (high f-numbers) and low ISO settings, there is a good likelihood that you will use slow shutter speeds, which will make handholding very tough and may result in blurry photos. Tripods are also great at making sure that your camera does not move between several exposures. - A Contrast Rich Scene: What you photograph is totally up to you. If I may, I would suggest that when you start off in HDR photography, you should find a landscape scene that has a strong contrast between its shadows and highlight areas. This will allow you to better see the effects HDR can achieve. Your Camera Manual: Find your camera’s manual. There, I said it. Find your camera manual! I know we all hate manuals, but they are the best way to get the most out of your camera. You should know where your manual is and read it -- or even better, study it. This will teach you a ton about your camera as well as how to use its different features, some of which we will explore now. Quick note: look up HDR in your camera manual. Many cameras now offer an in-camera HDR function. If yours does, find the section in your manual and follow the instructions. Then read through below for additional tips and directions. In-camera HDR settings will normally incorporate an exposure bracketing function and then process multiple source images into one final High Dynamic Range finished image file. If your camera doesn't have built-in HDR, or if you prefer to use 3rd-party computer software to produce HDR images, you'll need to set Auto Exposure Bracketing and other features independently. Exercise number one with your newfound camera manual is to discover your Auto Exposure Bracketing (AEB) mode. Why is this necessary, you might ask? AEB is the main component in creating an HDR photo. Let me try and explain why. A bracketing sequence will shoot a series of images that will be over and under exposed, compared to the shot you have set up in your camera. Together, these images will give you a series of photos that are correctly exposed for the brightest, darkest and for the mid-tone areas. Depending on your camera the AEB mode will either shoot 3, 5, 7, or 9 shots. The more images you can get, the better because the potential of capturing all the light in your scene increases. Follow your manual’s instruction on how to turn on and set your AEB mode. - Aperture Priority Mode: If you do not regularly shoot in Manual mode, I would highly suggest setting your camera to Aperture Priority mode (Av on Canon EOS cameras). This mode gives priority to the aperture setting (allowing you to pick it and lock it in) and let the camera determine shutter speed for you. Remember that aperture controls depth of field, so the higher the aperture, the greater the depth of field. In the case of landscape photography, just about any aperture value over f/11 will have your entire frame in focus. Start at f/11 and experiment your way up from there. - Metering Mode: In a nutshell, metering mode is simply how your camera samples light to determine the proper exposure. For the purpose here, it suffices to say that Evaluative Metering will work just fine for you. - White Balance: White balance is incredibly important in photography and getting it wrong can throw an entire image off. Again, for what we are learning here, we can go with Auto White Balance (AWB). But I do highly suggest you look into and learn more about how to use White Balance. - ISO: ISO determines how sensitive your camera is to light. The higher the number, the more sensitive it becomes. There is a downside to ISO though -- the higher the number, the lower your image quality can become. This drop in quality comes from what is referred to as "noise" or the graininess in images. So set your ISO as low as possible. In this case, go with ISO 100. - Self-Timer: Learn how to use the self-timer feature on your camera (another great use of your camera’s manual). The self-timer will get rid of any possible movement caused by holding down the shutter with your finger because you won't be touching it when it snaps. Personally, I prefer to use the 2-second timer. With this setting, you simply press the shutter release, let go of your cameras and 2 seconds later, the camera will take the 3, 5, 7, or 9 exposures in sequence. As you compose your shot, switch your lens to manual focus. While Auto Focus (AF) is an amazing technology, it is not always the best for landscapes. Using manual focus, set your focus point to infinity on the lens. This setting will average out the entire framed scene and bring all into focus. If you have a very important subject within your scene, at this point, my suggestion would be to switch your camera over to “Live View” and use the display’s zoom feature (do not zoom with the lens; zoom with the magnifying button) and zoom all the way in on your subject and focus manually. This will allow you to make sure that your subject is tack sharp (please note that there is a possibility that some of the image might be a little softer). If your lens does not have a "focusing index," which will allow you to manually focus your lens to infinity, I would suggest using your AF to focus, then switching the lens to manual focus and preventing the camera to refocus with each shot. Now that you have your shots, what's next? If your camera can do in-camera HDR and you followed your manual, then you should now have a finished HDR JPEG image. If your camera does not offer in-camera HDR or you chose not to use that feature, then you will have 3, 5, 7, or 9 images that need to be combined. A solid choice would be to use Adobe Photoshop, which has a robust and easy to use HDR feature. There are also plenty of other programs out there that will help you put these images together into an HDR photograph. Definitely plan ahead and look into what you will use to process all the images into HDR composites before going out to shoot. Have fun, experiment and try different setting combinations and processing techniques. There's more detail to see than you thought. - eos 5d mark ii - eos 7d - eos-1d mark iv - white papers - autofocus modes - autofocus techniques - cheat sheets - cinema eos - cmos sensors - eos 50d - eos 5d mark iii - eos 60d - eos c300 - eos c300 pl - eos-1d mark iii - eos-1d x - eos-1ds mark iii - non linear editing - product tutorials - speedlite 580ex ii - speedlite 600ex-rt - xf 305

<urn:uuid:93c00585-ff3c-4095-adf5-ace1797b50a7>

CC-MAIN-2018-13

http://www.learn.usa.canon.com/resources/blogs/2016/20160405-schall-hdr-blog.shtml

s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2018-13/segments/1521257649931.17/warc/CC-MAIN-20180324054204-20180324074204-00710.warc.gz

en

<urn:uuid:93c00585-ff3c-4095-adf5-ace1797b50a7>_0

Most likely, if you are passionate about photography (and I assume you are because you are reading the Canon Digital Learning Center’s blog), you have come across High Dynamic Range (HDR) photography.

Most likely, if you are passionate about photography (and I assume you are because you are reading the Canon Digital Learning Center’s blog), you have come across High Dynamic Range (HDR) photography. HDR photography is the process of taking multiple exposures of the same high-contrast scene at different levels of brightness, then combining them into one image. This single image with a wider range of detail, from the darkest to the brightest areas, is typically impossible with a single exposure. HDR photography is most often used to produce photos that mimic what the human eye is able to see. Now, I say “most often” because there is also a fun and creative side to HDR photography that allows for a lot interesting experimentation, something worth trying out. Back to the actual purpose of this blog entry: to help you get started with HDR photography. So what do you need, besides a camera and a lens, you might ask? - Tripod: Tripods are not absolutely necessary, but when you are starting off, it will make your life a lot easier. With small lens apertures (high f-numbers) and low ISO settings, there is a good likelihood that you will use slow shutter speeds, which will make handholding very tough and may result in blurry photos. Tripods are also great at making sure that your camera does not move between several exposures. - A Contrast Rich Scene: What you photograph is totally up to you. If I may, I would suggest that when you start off in HDR photography, you should find a landscape scene that has a strong contrast between its shadows and highlight areas. This will allow you to better see the effects HDR can achieve. Your Camera Manual: Find your camera’s manual. There, I said it. Find your camera manual! I know we all hate manuals, but they are the best way to get the most out of your camera. You should know where your manual is and read it -- or even better, study it. This will teach you a ton about your camera as well as how to use its different features, some of which we will explore now. Quick note: look up HDR in your camera manual. Many cameras now offer an in-camera HDR function. If yours does, find the section in your manual and follow the instructions. Then read through below for additional tips and directions. In-camera HDR settings will normally incorporate an exposure bracketing function and then process multiple source images into one final High Dynamic Range finished image file. If your camera doesn't have built-in HDR, or if you prefer to use 3rd-party computer software to produce HDR images, you'll need to set Auto Exposure Bracketing and other features independently. Exercise number one with your newfound camera manual is to discover your Auto Exposure Bracketing (AEB) mode. Why is this necessary, you might ask? AEB is the main component in creating an HDR photo. Let me try and explain why. A bracketing sequence will shoot a series of images that will be over and under exposed, compared to the shot you have set up in your camera. Together, these images will give you a series of photos that are correctly exposed for the brightest, darkest and for the mid-tone areas. Depending on your camera the AEB mode will either shoot 3, 5, 7, or 9 shots. The more images you can get, the better because the potential of capturing all the light in your scene increases. Follow your manual’s instruction on how to turn on and set your AEB mode. - Aperture Priority Mode: If you do not regularly shoot in Manual mode, I would highly suggest setting your camera to Aperture Priority mode (Av on Canon EOS cameras). This mode gives priority to the aperture setting (allowing you to pick it and lock it in) and let the camera determine shutter speed for you. Remember that aperture controls depth of field, so the higher the aperture, the greater the depth of field. In the case of landscape photography, just about any aperture value over f/11 will have your entire frame in focus. Start at f/11 and experiment your way up from there. - Metering Mode: In a nutshell, metering mode is simply how your camera samples light to determine the proper exposure. For the purpose here, it suffices to say that Evaluative Metering will work just fine for you. - White Balance: White balance is incredibly important in photography and getting it wrong can throw an entire image off. Again, for what we are learning here, we can go with Auto White Balance (AWB). But I do highly suggest you look into and learn more about how to use White Balance. - ISO: ISO determines how sensitive your camera is to light. The higher the number, the more sensitive it becomes. There is a downside to ISO though -- the higher the number, the lower your image quality can become. This drop in quality comes from what is referred to as "noise" or the graininess in images. So set your ISO as low as possible. In this case, go with ISO 100. - Self-Timer: Learn how to use the self-timer feature on your camera (another great use of your camera’s manual). The self-timer will get rid of any possible movement caused by holding down the shutter with your finger because you won't be touching it when it snaps. Personally, I prefer to use the 2-second timer. With this setting, you simply press the shutter release, let go of your cameras and 2 seconds later, the camera will take the 3, 5, 7, or 9 exposures in sequence. As you compose your shot, switch your lens to manual focus. While Auto Focus (AF) is an amazing technology, it is not always the best for landscapes. Using manual focus, set your focus point to infinity on the lens. This setting will average out the entire framed scene and bring all into focus. If you have a very important subject within your scene, at this point, my suggestion would be to switch your camera over to “Live View” and use the display’s zoom feature (do not zoom with the lens; zoom with the magnifying button) and zoom all the way in on your subject and focus manually. This will allow you to make sure that your subject is tack sharp (please note that there is a possibility that some of the image might be a little softer). If your lens does not have a "focusing index," which will allow you to manually focus your lens to infinity, I would suggest using your AF to focus, then switching the lens to manual focus and preventing the camera to refocus with each shot. Now that you have your shots, what's next? If your camera can do in-camera HDR and you followed your manual, then you should now have a finished HDR JPEG image. If your camera does not offer in-camera HDR or you chose not to use that feature, then you will have 3, 5, 7, or 9 images that need to be combined. A solid choice would be to use Adobe Photoshop, which has a robust and easy to use HDR feature. There are also plenty of other programs out there that will help you put these images together into an HDR photograph. Definitely plan ahead and look into what you will use to process all the images into HDR composites before going out to shoot. Have fun, experiment and try different setting combinations and processing techniques. There's more detail to see than you thought. - eos 5d mark ii - eos 7d - eos-1d mark iv - white papers - autofocus modes - autofocus techniques - cheat sheets - cinema eos - cmos sensors - eos 50d - eos 5d mark iii - eos 60d - eos c300 - eos c300 pl - eos-1d mark iii - eos-1d x - eos-1ds mark iii - non linear editing - product tutorials - speedlite 580ex ii - speedlite 600ex-rt - xf 305

<urn:uuid:93c00585-ff3c-4095-adf5-ace1797b50a7>

CC-MAIN-2018-13

http://www.learn.usa.canon.com/resources/blogs/2016/20160405-schall-hdr-blog.shtml

s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2018-13/segments/1521257649931.17/warc/CC-MAIN-20180324054204-20180324074204-00710.warc.gz

en

<urn:uuid:93c00585-ff3c-4095-adf5-ace1797b50a7>_1

HDR photography is the process of taking multiple exposures of the same high-contrast scene at different levels of brightness, then combining them into one image.

Most likely, if you are passionate about photography (and I assume you are because you are reading the Canon Digital Learning Center’s blog), you have come across High Dynamic Range (HDR) photography. HDR photography is the process of taking multiple exposures of the same high-contrast scene at different levels of brightness, then combining them into one image. This single image with a wider range of detail, from the darkest to the brightest areas, is typically impossible with a single exposure. HDR photography is most often used to produce photos that mimic what the human eye is able to see. Now, I say “most often” because there is also a fun and creative side to HDR photography that allows for a lot interesting experimentation, something worth trying out. Back to the actual purpose of this blog entry: to help you get started with HDR photography. So what do you need, besides a camera and a lens, you might ask? - Tripod: Tripods are not absolutely necessary, but when you are starting off, it will make your life a lot easier. With small lens apertures (high f-numbers) and low ISO settings, there is a good likelihood that you will use slow shutter speeds, which will make handholding very tough and may result in blurry photos. Tripods are also great at making sure that your camera does not move between several exposures. - A Contrast Rich Scene: What you photograph is totally up to you. If I may, I would suggest that when you start off in HDR photography, you should find a landscape scene that has a strong contrast between its shadows and highlight areas. This will allow you to better see the effects HDR can achieve. Your Camera Manual: Find your camera’s manual. There, I said it. Find your camera manual! I know we all hate manuals, but they are the best way to get the most out of your camera. You should know where your manual is and read it -- or even better, study it. This will teach you a ton about your camera as well as how to use its different features, some of which we will explore now. Quick note: look up HDR in your camera manual. Many cameras now offer an in-camera HDR function. If yours does, find the section in your manual and follow the instructions. Then read through below for additional tips and directions. In-camera HDR settings will normally incorporate an exposure bracketing function and then process multiple source images into one final High Dynamic Range finished image file. If your camera doesn't have built-in HDR, or if you prefer to use 3rd-party computer software to produce HDR images, you'll need to set Auto Exposure Bracketing and other features independently. Exercise number one with your newfound camera manual is to discover your Auto Exposure Bracketing (AEB) mode. Why is this necessary, you might ask? AEB is the main component in creating an HDR photo. Let me try and explain why. A bracketing sequence will shoot a series of images that will be over and under exposed, compared to the shot you have set up in your camera. Together, these images will give you a series of photos that are correctly exposed for the brightest, darkest and for the mid-tone areas. Depending on your camera the AEB mode will either shoot 3, 5, 7, or 9 shots. The more images you can get, the better because the potential of capturing all the light in your scene increases. Follow your manual’s instruction on how to turn on and set your AEB mode. - Aperture Priority Mode: If you do not regularly shoot in Manual mode, I would highly suggest setting your camera to Aperture Priority mode (Av on Canon EOS cameras). This mode gives priority to the aperture setting (allowing you to pick it and lock it in) and let the camera determine shutter speed for you. Remember that aperture controls depth of field, so the higher the aperture, the greater the depth of field. In the case of landscape photography, just about any aperture value over f/11 will have your entire frame in focus. Start at f/11 and experiment your way up from there. - Metering Mode: In a nutshell, metering mode is simply how your camera samples light to determine the proper exposure. For the purpose here, it suffices to say that Evaluative Metering will work just fine for you. - White Balance: White balance is incredibly important in photography and getting it wrong can throw an entire image off. Again, for what we are learning here, we can go with Auto White Balance (AWB). But I do highly suggest you look into and learn more about how to use White Balance. - ISO: ISO determines how sensitive your camera is to light. The higher the number, the more sensitive it becomes. There is a downside to ISO though -- the higher the number, the lower your image quality can become. This drop in quality comes from what is referred to as "noise" or the graininess in images. So set your ISO as low as possible. In this case, go with ISO 100. - Self-Timer: Learn how to use the self-timer feature on your camera (another great use of your camera’s manual). The self-timer will get rid of any possible movement caused by holding down the shutter with your finger because you won't be touching it when it snaps. Personally, I prefer to use the 2-second timer. With this setting, you simply press the shutter release, let go of your cameras and 2 seconds later, the camera will take the 3, 5, 7, or 9 exposures in sequence. As you compose your shot, switch your lens to manual focus. While Auto Focus (AF) is an amazing technology, it is not always the best for landscapes. Using manual focus, set your focus point to infinity on the lens. This setting will average out the entire framed scene and bring all into focus. If you have a very important subject within your scene, at this point, my suggestion would be to switch your camera over to “Live View” and use the display’s zoom feature (do not zoom with the lens; zoom with the magnifying button) and zoom all the way in on your subject and focus manually. This will allow you to make sure that your subject is tack sharp (please note that there is a possibility that some of the image might be a little softer). If your lens does not have a "focusing index," which will allow you to manually focus your lens to infinity, I would suggest using your AF to focus, then switching the lens to manual focus and preventing the camera to refocus with each shot. Now that you have your shots, what's next? If your camera can do in-camera HDR and you followed your manual, then you should now have a finished HDR JPEG image. If your camera does not offer in-camera HDR or you chose not to use that feature, then you will have 3, 5, 7, or 9 images that need to be combined. A solid choice would be to use Adobe Photoshop, which has a robust and easy to use HDR feature. There are also plenty of other programs out there that will help you put these images together into an HDR photograph. Definitely plan ahead and look into what you will use to process all the images into HDR composites before going out to shoot. Have fun, experiment and try different setting combinations and processing techniques. There's more detail to see than you thought. - eos 5d mark ii - eos 7d - eos-1d mark iv - white papers - autofocus modes - autofocus techniques - cheat sheets - cinema eos - cmos sensors - eos 50d - eos 5d mark iii - eos 60d - eos c300 - eos c300 pl - eos-1d mark iii - eos-1d x - eos-1ds mark iii - non linear editing - product tutorials - speedlite 580ex ii - speedlite 600ex-rt - xf 305

<urn:uuid:93c00585-ff3c-4095-adf5-ace1797b50a7>

CC-MAIN-2018-13

http://www.learn.usa.canon.com/resources/blogs/2016/20160405-schall-hdr-blog.shtml

s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2018-13/segments/1521257649931.17/warc/CC-MAIN-20180324054204-20180324074204-00710.warc.gz

en

<urn:uuid:93c00585-ff3c-4095-adf5-ace1797b50a7>_2

This single image with a wider range of detail, from the darkest to the brightest areas, is typically impossible with a single exposure.

Most likely, if you are passionate about photography (and I assume you are because you are reading the Canon Digital Learning Center’s blog), you have come across High Dynamic Range (HDR) photography. HDR photography is the process of taking multiple exposures of the same high-contrast scene at different levels of brightness, then combining them into one image. This single image with a wider range of detail, from the darkest to the brightest areas, is typically impossible with a single exposure. HDR photography is most often used to produce photos that mimic what the human eye is able to see. Now, I say “most often” because there is also a fun and creative side to HDR photography that allows for a lot interesting experimentation, something worth trying out. Back to the actual purpose of this blog entry: to help you get started with HDR photography. So what do you need, besides a camera and a lens, you might ask? - Tripod: Tripods are not absolutely necessary, but when you are starting off, it will make your life a lot easier. With small lens apertures (high f-numbers) and low ISO settings, there is a good likelihood that you will use slow shutter speeds, which will make handholding very tough and may result in blurry photos. Tripods are also great at making sure that your camera does not move between several exposures. - A Contrast Rich Scene: What you photograph is totally up to you. If I may, I would suggest that when you start off in HDR photography, you should find a landscape scene that has a strong contrast between its shadows and highlight areas. This will allow you to better see the effects HDR can achieve. Your Camera Manual: Find your camera’s manual. There, I said it. Find your camera manual! I know we all hate manuals, but they are the best way to get the most out of your camera. You should know where your manual is and read it -- or even better, study it. This will teach you a ton about your camera as well as how to use its different features, some of which we will explore now. Quick note: look up HDR in your camera manual. Many cameras now offer an in-camera HDR function. If yours does, find the section in your manual and follow the instructions. Then read through below for additional tips and directions. In-camera HDR settings will normally incorporate an exposure bracketing function and then process multiple source images into one final High Dynamic Range finished image file. If your camera doesn't have built-in HDR, or if you prefer to use 3rd-party computer software to produce HDR images, you'll need to set Auto Exposure Bracketing and other features independently. Exercise number one with your newfound camera manual is to discover your Auto Exposure Bracketing (AEB) mode. Why is this necessary, you might ask? AEB is the main component in creating an HDR photo. Let me try and explain why. A bracketing sequence will shoot a series of images that will be over and under exposed, compared to the shot you have set up in your camera. Together, these images will give you a series of photos that are correctly exposed for the brightest, darkest and for the mid-tone areas. Depending on your camera the AEB mode will either shoot 3, 5, 7, or 9 shots. The more images you can get, the better because the potential of capturing all the light in your scene increases. Follow your manual’s instruction on how to turn on and set your AEB mode. - Aperture Priority Mode: If you do not regularly shoot in Manual mode, I would highly suggest setting your camera to Aperture Priority mode (Av on Canon EOS cameras). This mode gives priority to the aperture setting (allowing you to pick it and lock it in) and let the camera determine shutter speed for you. Remember that aperture controls depth of field, so the higher the aperture, the greater the depth of field. In the case of landscape photography, just about any aperture value over f/11 will have your entire frame in focus. Start at f/11 and experiment your way up from there. - Metering Mode: In a nutshell, metering mode is simply how your camera samples light to determine the proper exposure. For the purpose here, it suffices to say that Evaluative Metering will work just fine for you. - White Balance: White balance is incredibly important in photography and getting it wrong can throw an entire image off. Again, for what we are learning here, we can go with Auto White Balance (AWB). But I do highly suggest you look into and learn more about how to use White Balance. - ISO: ISO determines how sensitive your camera is to light. The higher the number, the more sensitive it becomes. There is a downside to ISO though -- the higher the number, the lower your image quality can become. This drop in quality comes from what is referred to as "noise" or the graininess in images. So set your ISO as low as possible. In this case, go with ISO 100. - Self-Timer: Learn how to use the self-timer feature on your camera (another great use of your camera’s manual). The self-timer will get rid of any possible movement caused by holding down the shutter with your finger because you won't be touching it when it snaps. Personally, I prefer to use the 2-second timer. With this setting, you simply press the shutter release, let go of your cameras and 2 seconds later, the camera will take the 3, 5, 7, or 9 exposures in sequence. As you compose your shot, switch your lens to manual focus. While Auto Focus (AF) is an amazing technology, it is not always the best for landscapes. Using manual focus, set your focus point to infinity on the lens. This setting will average out the entire framed scene and bring all into focus. If you have a very important subject within your scene, at this point, my suggestion would be to switch your camera over to “Live View” and use the display’s zoom feature (do not zoom with the lens; zoom with the magnifying button) and zoom all the way in on your subject and focus manually. This will allow you to make sure that your subject is tack sharp (please note that there is a possibility that some of the image might be a little softer). If your lens does not have a "focusing index," which will allow you to manually focus your lens to infinity, I would suggest using your AF to focus, then switching the lens to manual focus and preventing the camera to refocus with each shot. Now that you have your shots, what's next? If your camera can do in-camera HDR and you followed your manual, then you should now have a finished HDR JPEG image. If your camera does not offer in-camera HDR or you chose not to use that feature, then you will have 3, 5, 7, or 9 images that need to be combined. A solid choice would be to use Adobe Photoshop, which has a robust and easy to use HDR feature. There are also plenty of other programs out there that will help you put these images together into an HDR photograph. Definitely plan ahead and look into what you will use to process all the images into HDR composites before going out to shoot. Have fun, experiment and try different setting combinations and processing techniques. There's more detail to see than you thought. - eos 5d mark ii - eos 7d - eos-1d mark iv - white papers - autofocus modes - autofocus techniques - cheat sheets - cinema eos - cmos sensors - eos 50d - eos 5d mark iii - eos 60d - eos c300 - eos c300 pl - eos-1d mark iii - eos-1d x - eos-1ds mark iii - non linear editing - product tutorials - speedlite 580ex ii - speedlite 600ex-rt - xf 305

<urn:uuid:93c00585-ff3c-4095-adf5-ace1797b50a7>

CC-MAIN-2018-13

http://www.learn.usa.canon.com/resources/blogs/2016/20160405-schall-hdr-blog.shtml

s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2018-13/segments/1521257649931.17/warc/CC-MAIN-20180324054204-20180324074204-00710.warc.gz

en

<urn:uuid:93c00585-ff3c-4095-adf5-ace1797b50a7>_3

HDR photography is most often used to produce photos that mimic what the human eye is able to see.

Most likely, if you are passionate about photography (and I assume you are because you are reading the Canon Digital Learning Center’s blog), you have come across High Dynamic Range (HDR) photography. HDR photography is the process of taking multiple exposures of the same high-contrast scene at different levels of brightness, then combining them into one image. This single image with a wider range of detail, from the darkest to the brightest areas, is typically impossible with a single exposure. HDR photography is most often used to produce photos that mimic what the human eye is able to see. Now, I say “most often” because there is also a fun and creative side to HDR photography that allows for a lot interesting experimentation, something worth trying out. Back to the actual purpose of this blog entry: to help you get started with HDR photography. So what do you need, besides a camera and a lens, you might ask? - Tripod: Tripods are not absolutely necessary, but when you are starting off, it will make your life a lot easier. With small lens apertures (high f-numbers) and low ISO settings, there is a good likelihood that you will use slow shutter speeds, which will make handholding very tough and may result in blurry photos. Tripods are also great at making sure that your camera does not move between several exposures. - A Contrast Rich Scene: What you photograph is totally up to you. If I may, I would suggest that when you start off in HDR photography, you should find a landscape scene that has a strong contrast between its shadows and highlight areas. This will allow you to better see the effects HDR can achieve. Your Camera Manual: Find your camera’s manual. There, I said it. Find your camera manual! I know we all hate manuals, but they are the best way to get the most out of your camera. You should know where your manual is and read it -- or even better, study it. This will teach you a ton about your camera as well as how to use its different features, some of which we will explore now. Quick note: look up HDR in your camera manual. Many cameras now offer an in-camera HDR function. If yours does, find the section in your manual and follow the instructions. Then read through below for additional tips and directions. In-camera HDR settings will normally incorporate an exposure bracketing function and then process multiple source images into one final High Dynamic Range finished image file. If your camera doesn't have built-in HDR, or if you prefer to use 3rd-party computer software to produce HDR images, you'll need to set Auto Exposure Bracketing and other features independently. Exercise number one with your newfound camera manual is to discover your Auto Exposure Bracketing (AEB) mode. Why is this necessary, you might ask? AEB is the main component in creating an HDR photo. Let me try and explain why. A bracketing sequence will shoot a series of images that will be over and under exposed, compared to the shot you have set up in your camera. Together, these images will give you a series of photos that are correctly exposed for the brightest, darkest and for the mid-tone areas. Depending on your camera the AEB mode will either shoot 3, 5, 7, or 9 shots. The more images you can get, the better because the potential of capturing all the light in your scene increases. Follow your manual’s instruction on how to turn on and set your AEB mode. - Aperture Priority Mode: If you do not regularly shoot in Manual mode, I would highly suggest setting your camera to Aperture Priority mode (Av on Canon EOS cameras). This mode gives priority to the aperture setting (allowing you to pick it and lock it in) and let the camera determine shutter speed for you. Remember that aperture controls depth of field, so the higher the aperture, the greater the depth of field. In the case of landscape photography, just about any aperture value over f/11 will have your entire frame in focus. Start at f/11 and experiment your way up from there. - Metering Mode: In a nutshell, metering mode is simply how your camera samples light to determine the proper exposure. For the purpose here, it suffices to say that Evaluative Metering will work just fine for you. - White Balance: White balance is incredibly important in photography and getting it wrong can throw an entire image off. Again, for what we are learning here, we can go with Auto White Balance (AWB). But I do highly suggest you look into and learn more about how to use White Balance. - ISO: ISO determines how sensitive your camera is to light. The higher the number, the more sensitive it becomes. There is a downside to ISO though -- the higher the number, the lower your image quality can become. This drop in quality comes from what is referred to as "noise" or the graininess in images. So set your ISO as low as possible. In this case, go with ISO 100. - Self-Timer: Learn how to use the self-timer feature on your camera (another great use of your camera’s manual). The self-timer will get rid of any possible movement caused by holding down the shutter with your finger because you won't be touching it when it snaps. Personally, I prefer to use the 2-second timer. With this setting, you simply press the shutter release, let go of your cameras and 2 seconds later, the camera will take the 3, 5, 7, or 9 exposures in sequence. As you compose your shot, switch your lens to manual focus. While Auto Focus (AF) is an amazing technology, it is not always the best for landscapes. Using manual focus, set your focus point to infinity on the lens. This setting will average out the entire framed scene and bring all into focus. If you have a very important subject within your scene, at this point, my suggestion would be to switch your camera over to “Live View” and use the display’s zoom feature (do not zoom with the lens; zoom with the magnifying button) and zoom all the way in on your subject and focus manually. This will allow you to make sure that your subject is tack sharp (please note that there is a possibility that some of the image might be a little softer). If your lens does not have a "focusing index," which will allow you to manually focus your lens to infinity, I would suggest using your AF to focus, then switching the lens to manual focus and preventing the camera to refocus with each shot. Now that you have your shots, what's next? If your camera can do in-camera HDR and you followed your manual, then you should now have a finished HDR JPEG image. If your camera does not offer in-camera HDR or you chose not to use that feature, then you will have 3, 5, 7, or 9 images that need to be combined. A solid choice would be to use Adobe Photoshop, which has a robust and easy to use HDR feature. There are also plenty of other programs out there that will help you put these images together into an HDR photograph. Definitely plan ahead and look into what you will use to process all the images into HDR composites before going out to shoot. Have fun, experiment and try different setting combinations and processing techniques. There's more detail to see than you thought. - eos 5d mark ii - eos 7d - eos-1d mark iv - white papers - autofocus modes - autofocus techniques - cheat sheets - cinema eos - cmos sensors - eos 50d - eos 5d mark iii - eos 60d - eos c300 - eos c300 pl - eos-1d mark iii - eos-1d x - eos-1ds mark iii - non linear editing - product tutorials - speedlite 580ex ii - speedlite 600ex-rt - xf 305

<urn:uuid:93c00585-ff3c-4095-adf5-ace1797b50a7>

CC-MAIN-2018-13

http://www.learn.usa.canon.com/resources/blogs/2016/20160405-schall-hdr-blog.shtml

s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2018-13/segments/1521257649931.17/warc/CC-MAIN-20180324054204-20180324074204-00710.warc.gz

en

<urn:uuid:93c00585-ff3c-4095-adf5-ace1797b50a7>_4

Now, I say “most often” because there is also a fun and creative side to HDR photography that allows for a lot interesting experimentation, something worth trying out.

Most likely, if you are passionate about photography (and I assume you are because you are reading the Canon Digital Learning Center’s blog), you have come across High Dynamic Range (HDR) photography. HDR photography is the process of taking multiple exposures of the same high-contrast scene at different levels of brightness, then combining them into one image. This single image with a wider range of detail, from the darkest to the brightest areas, is typically impossible with a single exposure. HDR photography is most often used to produce photos that mimic what the human eye is able to see. Now, I say “most often” because there is also a fun and creative side to HDR photography that allows for a lot interesting experimentation, something worth trying out. Back to the actual purpose of this blog entry: to help you get started with HDR photography. So what do you need, besides a camera and a lens, you might ask? - Tripod: Tripods are not absolutely necessary, but when you are starting off, it will make your life a lot easier. With small lens apertures (high f-numbers) and low ISO settings, there is a good likelihood that you will use slow shutter speeds, which will make handholding very tough and may result in blurry photos. Tripods are also great at making sure that your camera does not move between several exposures. - A Contrast Rich Scene: What you photograph is totally up to you. If I may, I would suggest that when you start off in HDR photography, you should find a landscape scene that has a strong contrast between its shadows and highlight areas. This will allow you to better see the effects HDR can achieve. Your Camera Manual: Find your camera’s manual. There, I said it. Find your camera manual! I know we all hate manuals, but they are the best way to get the most out of your camera. You should know where your manual is and read it -- or even better, study it. This will teach you a ton about your camera as well as how to use its different features, some of which we will explore now. Quick note: look up HDR in your camera manual. Many cameras now offer an in-camera HDR function. If yours does, find the section in your manual and follow the instructions. Then read through below for additional tips and directions. In-camera HDR settings will normally incorporate an exposure bracketing function and then process multiple source images into one final High Dynamic Range finished image file. If your camera doesn't have built-in HDR, or if you prefer to use 3rd-party computer software to produce HDR images, you'll need to set Auto Exposure Bracketing and other features independently. Exercise number one with your newfound camera manual is to discover your Auto Exposure Bracketing (AEB) mode. Why is this necessary, you might ask? AEB is the main component in creating an HDR photo. Let me try and explain why. A bracketing sequence will shoot a series of images that will be over and under exposed, compared to the shot you have set up in your camera. Together, these images will give you a series of photos that are correctly exposed for the brightest, darkest and for the mid-tone areas. Depending on your camera the AEB mode will either shoot 3, 5, 7, or 9 shots. The more images you can get, the better because the potential of capturing all the light in your scene increases. Follow your manual’s instruction on how to turn on and set your AEB mode. - Aperture Priority Mode: If you do not regularly shoot in Manual mode, I would highly suggest setting your camera to Aperture Priority mode (Av on Canon EOS cameras). This mode gives priority to the aperture setting (allowing you to pick it and lock it in) and let the camera determine shutter speed for you. Remember that aperture controls depth of field, so the higher the aperture, the greater the depth of field. In the case of landscape photography, just about any aperture value over f/11 will have your entire frame in focus. Start at f/11 and experiment your way up from there. - Metering Mode: In a nutshell, metering mode is simply how your camera samples light to determine the proper exposure. For the purpose here, it suffices to say that Evaluative Metering will work just fine for you. - White Balance: White balance is incredibly important in photography and getting it wrong can throw an entire image off. Again, for what we are learning here, we can go with Auto White Balance (AWB). But I do highly suggest you look into and learn more about how to use White Balance. - ISO: ISO determines how sensitive your camera is to light. The higher the number, the more sensitive it becomes. There is a downside to ISO though -- the higher the number, the lower your image quality can become. This drop in quality comes from what is referred to as "noise" or the graininess in images. So set your ISO as low as possible. In this case, go with ISO 100. - Self-Timer: Learn how to use the self-timer feature on your camera (another great use of your camera’s manual). The self-timer will get rid of any possible movement caused by holding down the shutter with your finger because you won't be touching it when it snaps. Personally, I prefer to use the 2-second timer. With this setting, you simply press the shutter release, let go of your cameras and 2 seconds later, the camera will take the 3, 5, 7, or 9 exposures in sequence. As you compose your shot, switch your lens to manual focus. While Auto Focus (AF) is an amazing technology, it is not always the best for landscapes. Using manual focus, set your focus point to infinity on the lens. This setting will average out the entire framed scene and bring all into focus. If you have a very important subject within your scene, at this point, my suggestion would be to switch your camera over to “Live View” and use the display’s zoom feature (do not zoom with the lens; zoom with the magnifying button) and zoom all the way in on your subject and focus manually. This will allow you to make sure that your subject is tack sharp (please note that there is a possibility that some of the image might be a little softer). If your lens does not have a "focusing index," which will allow you to manually focus your lens to infinity, I would suggest using your AF to focus, then switching the lens to manual focus and preventing the camera to refocus with each shot. Now that you have your shots, what's next? If your camera can do in-camera HDR and you followed your manual, then you should now have a finished HDR JPEG image. If your camera does not offer in-camera HDR or you chose not to use that feature, then you will have 3, 5, 7, or 9 images that need to be combined. A solid choice would be to use Adobe Photoshop, which has a robust and easy to use HDR feature. There are also plenty of other programs out there that will help you put these images together into an HDR photograph. Definitely plan ahead and look into what you will use to process all the images into HDR composites before going out to shoot. Have fun, experiment and try different setting combinations and processing techniques. There's more detail to see than you thought. - eos 5d mark ii - eos 7d - eos-1d mark iv - white papers - autofocus modes - autofocus techniques - cheat sheets - cinema eos - cmos sensors - eos 50d - eos 5d mark iii - eos 60d - eos c300 - eos c300 pl - eos-1d mark iii - eos-1d x - eos-1ds mark iii - non linear editing - product tutorials - speedlite 580ex ii - speedlite 600ex-rt - xf 305

<urn:uuid:93c00585-ff3c-4095-adf5-ace1797b50a7>

CC-MAIN-2018-13

http://www.learn.usa.canon.com/resources/blogs/2016/20160405-schall-hdr-blog.shtml

s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2018-13/segments/1521257649931.17/warc/CC-MAIN-20180324054204-20180324074204-00710.warc.gz

en

<urn:uuid:93c00585-ff3c-4095-adf5-ace1797b50a7>_5

Back to the actual purpose of this blog entry: to help you get started with HDR photography.

Most likely, if you are passionate about photography (and I assume you are because you are reading the Canon Digital Learning Center’s blog), you have come across High Dynamic Range (HDR) photography. HDR photography is the process of taking multiple exposures of the same high-contrast scene at different levels of brightness, then combining them into one image. This single image with a wider range of detail, from the darkest to the brightest areas, is typically impossible with a single exposure. HDR photography is most often used to produce photos that mimic what the human eye is able to see. Now, I say “most often” because there is also a fun and creative side to HDR photography that allows for a lot interesting experimentation, something worth trying out. Back to the actual purpose of this blog entry: to help you get started with HDR photography. So what do you need, besides a camera and a lens, you might ask? - Tripod: Tripods are not absolutely necessary, but when you are starting off, it will make your life a lot easier. With small lens apertures (high f-numbers) and low ISO settings, there is a good likelihood that you will use slow shutter speeds, which will make handholding very tough and may result in blurry photos. Tripods are also great at making sure that your camera does not move between several exposures. - A Contrast Rich Scene: What you photograph is totally up to you. If I may, I would suggest that when you start off in HDR photography, you should find a landscape scene that has a strong contrast between its shadows and highlight areas. This will allow you to better see the effects HDR can achieve. Your Camera Manual: Find your camera’s manual. There, I said it. Find your camera manual! I know we all hate manuals, but they are the best way to get the most out of your camera. You should know where your manual is and read it -- or even better, study it. This will teach you a ton about your camera as well as how to use its different features, some of which we will explore now. Quick note: look up HDR in your camera manual. Many cameras now offer an in-camera HDR function. If yours does, find the section in your manual and follow the instructions. Then read through below for additional tips and directions. In-camera HDR settings will normally incorporate an exposure bracketing function and then process multiple source images into one final High Dynamic Range finished image file. If your camera doesn't have built-in HDR, or if you prefer to use 3rd-party computer software to produce HDR images, you'll need to set Auto Exposure Bracketing and other features independently. Exercise number one with your newfound camera manual is to discover your Auto Exposure Bracketing (AEB) mode. Why is this necessary, you might ask? AEB is the main component in creating an HDR photo. Let me try and explain why. A bracketing sequence will shoot a series of images that will be over and under exposed, compared to the shot you have set up in your camera. Together, these images will give you a series of photos that are correctly exposed for the brightest, darkest and for the mid-tone areas. Depending on your camera the AEB mode will either shoot 3, 5, 7, or 9 shots. The more images you can get, the better because the potential of capturing all the light in your scene increases. Follow your manual’s instruction on how to turn on and set your AEB mode. - Aperture Priority Mode: If you do not regularly shoot in Manual mode, I would highly suggest setting your camera to Aperture Priority mode (Av on Canon EOS cameras). This mode gives priority to the aperture setting (allowing you to pick it and lock it in) and let the camera determine shutter speed for you. Remember that aperture controls depth of field, so the higher the aperture, the greater the depth of field. In the case of landscape photography, just about any aperture value over f/11 will have your entire frame in focus. Start at f/11 and experiment your way up from there. - Metering Mode: In a nutshell, metering mode is simply how your camera samples light to determine the proper exposure. For the purpose here, it suffices to say that Evaluative Metering will work just fine for you. - White Balance: White balance is incredibly important in photography and getting it wrong can throw an entire image off. Again, for what we are learning here, we can go with Auto White Balance (AWB). But I do highly suggest you look into and learn more about how to use White Balance. - ISO: ISO determines how sensitive your camera is to light. The higher the number, the more sensitive it becomes. There is a downside to ISO though -- the higher the number, the lower your image quality can become. This drop in quality comes from what is referred to as "noise" or the graininess in images. So set your ISO as low as possible. In this case, go with ISO 100. - Self-Timer: Learn how to use the self-timer feature on your camera (another great use of your camera’s manual). The self-timer will get rid of any possible movement caused by holding down the shutter with your finger because you won't be touching it when it snaps. Personally, I prefer to use the 2-second timer. With this setting, you simply press the shutter release, let go of your cameras and 2 seconds later, the camera will take the 3, 5, 7, or 9 exposures in sequence. As you compose your shot, switch your lens to manual focus. While Auto Focus (AF) is an amazing technology, it is not always the best for landscapes. Using manual focus, set your focus point to infinity on the lens. This setting will average out the entire framed scene and bring all into focus. If you have a very important subject within your scene, at this point, my suggestion would be to switch your camera over to “Live View” and use the display’s zoom feature (do not zoom with the lens; zoom with the magnifying button) and zoom all the way in on your subject and focus manually. This will allow you to make sure that your subject is tack sharp (please note that there is a possibility that some of the image might be a little softer). If your lens does not have a "focusing index," which will allow you to manually focus your lens to infinity, I would suggest using your AF to focus, then switching the lens to manual focus and preventing the camera to refocus with each shot. Now that you have your shots, what's next? If your camera can do in-camera HDR and you followed your manual, then you should now have a finished HDR JPEG image. If your camera does not offer in-camera HDR or you chose not to use that feature, then you will have 3, 5, 7, or 9 images that need to be combined. A solid choice would be to use Adobe Photoshop, which has a robust and easy to use HDR feature. There are also plenty of other programs out there that will help you put these images together into an HDR photograph. Definitely plan ahead and look into what you will use to process all the images into HDR composites before going out to shoot. Have fun, experiment and try different setting combinations and processing techniques. There's more detail to see than you thought. - eos 5d mark ii - eos 7d - eos-1d mark iv - white papers - autofocus modes - autofocus techniques - cheat sheets - cinema eos - cmos sensors - eos 50d - eos 5d mark iii - eos 60d - eos c300 - eos c300 pl - eos-1d mark iii - eos-1d x - eos-1ds mark iii - non linear editing - product tutorials - speedlite 580ex ii - speedlite 600ex-rt - xf 305

<urn:uuid:93c00585-ff3c-4095-adf5-ace1797b50a7>

CC-MAIN-2018-13

http://www.learn.usa.canon.com/resources/blogs/2016/20160405-schall-hdr-blog.shtml

s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2018-13/segments/1521257649931.17/warc/CC-MAIN-20180324054204-20180324074204-00710.warc.gz

en

<urn:uuid:93c00585-ff3c-4095-adf5-ace1797b50a7>_6

So what do you need, besides a camera and a lens, you might ask?

Most likely, if you are passionate about photography (and I assume you are because you are reading the Canon Digital Learning Center’s blog), you have come across High Dynamic Range (HDR) photography. HDR photography is the process of taking multiple exposures of the same high-contrast scene at different levels of brightness, then combining them into one image. This single image with a wider range of detail, from the darkest to the brightest areas, is typically impossible with a single exposure. HDR photography is most often used to produce photos that mimic what the human eye is able to see. Now, I say “most often” because there is also a fun and creative side to HDR photography that allows for a lot interesting experimentation, something worth trying out. Back to the actual purpose of this blog entry: to help you get started with HDR photography. So what do you need, besides a camera and a lens, you might ask? - Tripod: Tripods are not absolutely necessary, but when you are starting off, it will make your life a lot easier. With small lens apertures (high f-numbers) and low ISO settings, there is a good likelihood that you will use slow shutter speeds, which will make handholding very tough and may result in blurry photos. Tripods are also great at making sure that your camera does not move between several exposures. - A Contrast Rich Scene: What you photograph is totally up to you. If I may, I would suggest that when you start off in HDR photography, you should find a landscape scene that has a strong contrast between its shadows and highlight areas. This will allow you to better see the effects HDR can achieve. Your Camera Manual: Find your camera’s manual. There, I said it. Find your camera manual! I know we all hate manuals, but they are the best way to get the most out of your camera. You should know where your manual is and read it -- or even better, study it. This will teach you a ton about your camera as well as how to use its different features, some of which we will explore now. Quick note: look up HDR in your camera manual. Many cameras now offer an in-camera HDR function. If yours does, find the section in your manual and follow the instructions. Then read through below for additional tips and directions. In-camera HDR settings will normally incorporate an exposure bracketing function and then process multiple source images into one final High Dynamic Range finished image file. If your camera doesn't have built-in HDR, or if you prefer to use 3rd-party computer software to produce HDR images, you'll need to set Auto Exposure Bracketing and other features independently. Exercise number one with your newfound camera manual is to discover your Auto Exposure Bracketing (AEB) mode. Why is this necessary, you might ask? AEB is the main component in creating an HDR photo. Let me try and explain why. A bracketing sequence will shoot a series of images that will be over and under exposed, compared to the shot you have set up in your camera. Together, these images will give you a series of photos that are correctly exposed for the brightest, darkest and for the mid-tone areas. Depending on your camera the AEB mode will either shoot 3, 5, 7, or 9 shots. The more images you can get, the better because the potential of capturing all the light in your scene increases. Follow your manual’s instruction on how to turn on and set your AEB mode. - Aperture Priority Mode: If you do not regularly shoot in Manual mode, I would highly suggest setting your camera to Aperture Priority mode (Av on Canon EOS cameras). This mode gives priority to the aperture setting (allowing you to pick it and lock it in) and let the camera determine shutter speed for you. Remember that aperture controls depth of field, so the higher the aperture, the greater the depth of field. In the case of landscape photography, just about any aperture value over f/11 will have your entire frame in focus. Start at f/11 and experiment your way up from there. - Metering Mode: In a nutshell, metering mode is simply how your camera samples light to determine the proper exposure. For the purpose here, it suffices to say that Evaluative Metering will work just fine for you. - White Balance: White balance is incredibly important in photography and getting it wrong can throw an entire image off. Again, for what we are learning here, we can go with Auto White Balance (AWB). But I do highly suggest you look into and learn more about how to use White Balance. - ISO: ISO determines how sensitive your camera is to light. The higher the number, the more sensitive it becomes. There is a downside to ISO though -- the higher the number, the lower your image quality can become. This drop in quality comes from what is referred to as "noise" or the graininess in images. So set your ISO as low as possible. In this case, go with ISO 100. - Self-Timer: Learn how to use the self-timer feature on your camera (another great use of your camera’s manual). The self-timer will get rid of any possible movement caused by holding down the shutter with your finger because you won't be touching it when it snaps. Personally, I prefer to use the 2-second timer. With this setting, you simply press the shutter release, let go of your cameras and 2 seconds later, the camera will take the 3, 5, 7, or 9 exposures in sequence. As you compose your shot, switch your lens to manual focus. While Auto Focus (AF) is an amazing technology, it is not always the best for landscapes. Using manual focus, set your focus point to infinity on the lens. This setting will average out the entire framed scene and bring all into focus. If you have a very important subject within your scene, at this point, my suggestion would be to switch your camera over to “Live View” and use the display’s zoom feature (do not zoom with the lens; zoom with the magnifying button) and zoom all the way in on your subject and focus manually. This will allow you to make sure that your subject is tack sharp (please note that there is a possibility that some of the image might be a little softer). If your lens does not have a "focusing index," which will allow you to manually focus your lens to infinity, I would suggest using your AF to focus, then switching the lens to manual focus and preventing the camera to refocus with each shot. Now that you have your shots, what's next? If your camera can do in-camera HDR and you followed your manual, then you should now have a finished HDR JPEG image. If your camera does not offer in-camera HDR or you chose not to use that feature, then you will have 3, 5, 7, or 9 images that need to be combined. A solid choice would be to use Adobe Photoshop, which has a robust and easy to use HDR feature. There are also plenty of other programs out there that will help you put these images together into an HDR photograph. Definitely plan ahead and look into what you will use to process all the images into HDR composites before going out to shoot. Have fun, experiment and try different setting combinations and processing techniques. There's more detail to see than you thought. - eos 5d mark ii - eos 7d - eos-1d mark iv - white papers - autofocus modes - autofocus techniques - cheat sheets - cinema eos - cmos sensors - eos 50d - eos 5d mark iii - eos 60d - eos c300 - eos c300 pl - eos-1d mark iii - eos-1d x - eos-1ds mark iii - non linear editing - product tutorials - speedlite 580ex ii - speedlite 600ex-rt - xf 305

<urn:uuid:93c00585-ff3c-4095-adf5-ace1797b50a7>

CC-MAIN-2018-13

http://www.learn.usa.canon.com/resources/blogs/2016/20160405-schall-hdr-blog.shtml

s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2018-13/segments/1521257649931.17/warc/CC-MAIN-20180324054204-20180324074204-00710.warc.gz

en

<urn:uuid:93c00585-ff3c-4095-adf5-ace1797b50a7>_7

- Tripod: Tripods are not absolutely necessary, but when you are starting off, it will make your life a lot easier.

Most likely, if you are passionate about photography (and I assume you are because you are reading the Canon Digital Learning Center’s blog), you have come across High Dynamic Range (HDR) photography. HDR photography is the process of taking multiple exposures of the same high-contrast scene at different levels of brightness, then combining them into one image. This single image with a wider range of detail, from the darkest to the brightest areas, is typically impossible with a single exposure. HDR photography is most often used to produce photos that mimic what the human eye is able to see. Now, I say “most often” because there is also a fun and creative side to HDR photography that allows for a lot interesting experimentation, something worth trying out. Back to the actual purpose of this blog entry: to help you get started with HDR photography. So what do you need, besides a camera and a lens, you might ask? - Tripod: Tripods are not absolutely necessary, but when you are starting off, it will make your life a lot easier. With small lens apertures (high f-numbers) and low ISO settings, there is a good likelihood that you will use slow shutter speeds, which will make handholding very tough and may result in blurry photos. Tripods are also great at making sure that your camera does not move between several exposures. - A Contrast Rich Scene: What you photograph is totally up to you. If I may, I would suggest that when you start off in HDR photography, you should find a landscape scene that has a strong contrast between its shadows and highlight areas. This will allow you to better see the effects HDR can achieve. Your Camera Manual: Find your camera’s manual. There, I said it. Find your camera manual! I know we all hate manuals, but they are the best way to get the most out of your camera. You should know where your manual is and read it -- or even better, study it. This will teach you a ton about your camera as well as how to use its different features, some of which we will explore now. Quick note: look up HDR in your camera manual. Many cameras now offer an in-camera HDR function. If yours does, find the section in your manual and follow the instructions. Then read through below for additional tips and directions. In-camera HDR settings will normally incorporate an exposure bracketing function and then process multiple source images into one final High Dynamic Range finished image file. If your camera doesn't have built-in HDR, or if you prefer to use 3rd-party computer software to produce HDR images, you'll need to set Auto Exposure Bracketing and other features independently. Exercise number one with your newfound camera manual is to discover your Auto Exposure Bracketing (AEB) mode. Why is this necessary, you might ask? AEB is the main component in creating an HDR photo. Let me try and explain why. A bracketing sequence will shoot a series of images that will be over and under exposed, compared to the shot you have set up in your camera. Together, these images will give you a series of photos that are correctly exposed for the brightest, darkest and for the mid-tone areas. Depending on your camera the AEB mode will either shoot 3, 5, 7, or 9 shots. The more images you can get, the better because the potential of capturing all the light in your scene increases. Follow your manual’s instruction on how to turn on and set your AEB mode. - Aperture Priority Mode: If you do not regularly shoot in Manual mode, I would highly suggest setting your camera to Aperture Priority mode (Av on Canon EOS cameras). This mode gives priority to the aperture setting (allowing you to pick it and lock it in) and let the camera determine shutter speed for you. Remember that aperture controls depth of field, so the higher the aperture, the greater the depth of field. In the case of landscape photography, just about any aperture value over f/11 will have your entire frame in focus. Start at f/11 and experiment your way up from there. - Metering Mode: In a nutshell, metering mode is simply how your camera samples light to determine the proper exposure. For the purpose here, it suffices to say that Evaluative Metering will work just fine for you. - White Balance: White balance is incredibly important in photography and getting it wrong can throw an entire image off. Again, for what we are learning here, we can go with Auto White Balance (AWB). But I do highly suggest you look into and learn more about how to use White Balance. - ISO: ISO determines how sensitive your camera is to light. The higher the number, the more sensitive it becomes. There is a downside to ISO though -- the higher the number, the lower your image quality can become. This drop in quality comes from what is referred to as "noise" or the graininess in images. So set your ISO as low as possible. In this case, go with ISO 100. - Self-Timer: Learn how to use the self-timer feature on your camera (another great use of your camera’s manual). The self-timer will get rid of any possible movement caused by holding down the shutter with your finger because you won't be touching it when it snaps. Personally, I prefer to use the 2-second timer. With this setting, you simply press the shutter release, let go of your cameras and 2 seconds later, the camera will take the 3, 5, 7, or 9 exposures in sequence. As you compose your shot, switch your lens to manual focus. While Auto Focus (AF) is an amazing technology, it is not always the best for landscapes. Using manual focus, set your focus point to infinity on the lens. This setting will average out the entire framed scene and bring all into focus. If you have a very important subject within your scene, at this point, my suggestion would be to switch your camera over to “Live View” and use the display’s zoom feature (do not zoom with the lens; zoom with the magnifying button) and zoom all the way in on your subject and focus manually. This will allow you to make sure that your subject is tack sharp (please note that there is a possibility that some of the image might be a little softer). If your lens does not have a "focusing index," which will allow you to manually focus your lens to infinity, I would suggest using your AF to focus, then switching the lens to manual focus and preventing the camera to refocus with each shot. Now that you have your shots, what's next? If your camera can do in-camera HDR and you followed your manual, then you should now have a finished HDR JPEG image. If your camera does not offer in-camera HDR or you chose not to use that feature, then you will have 3, 5, 7, or 9 images that need to be combined. A solid choice would be to use Adobe Photoshop, which has a robust and easy to use HDR feature. There are also plenty of other programs out there that will help you put these images together into an HDR photograph. Definitely plan ahead and look into what you will use to process all the images into HDR composites before going out to shoot. Have fun, experiment and try different setting combinations and processing techniques. There's more detail to see than you thought. - eos 5d mark ii - eos 7d - eos-1d mark iv - white papers - autofocus modes - autofocus techniques - cheat sheets - cinema eos - cmos sensors - eos 50d - eos 5d mark iii - eos 60d - eos c300 - eos c300 pl - eos-1d mark iii - eos-1d x - eos-1ds mark iii - non linear editing - product tutorials - speedlite 580ex ii - speedlite 600ex-rt - xf 305

<urn:uuid:93c00585-ff3c-4095-adf5-ace1797b50a7>

CC-MAIN-2018-13

http://www.learn.usa.canon.com/resources/blogs/2016/20160405-schall-hdr-blog.shtml

s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2018-13/segments/1521257649931.17/warc/CC-MAIN-20180324054204-20180324074204-00710.warc.gz

en

<urn:uuid:93c00585-ff3c-4095-adf5-ace1797b50a7>_8

With small lens apertures (high f-numbers) and low ISO settings, there is a good likelihood that you will use slow shutter speeds, which will make handholding very tough and may result in blurry photos.

Most likely, if you are passionate about photography (and I assume you are because you are reading the Canon Digital Learning Center’s blog), you have come across High Dynamic Range (HDR) photography. HDR photography is the process of taking multiple exposures of the same high-contrast scene at different levels of brightness, then combining them into one image. This single image with a wider range of detail, from the darkest to the brightest areas, is typically impossible with a single exposure. HDR photography is most often used to produce photos that mimic what the human eye is able to see. Now, I say “most often” because there is also a fun and creative side to HDR photography that allows for a lot interesting experimentation, something worth trying out. Back to the actual purpose of this blog entry: to help you get started with HDR photography. So what do you need, besides a camera and a lens, you might ask? - Tripod: Tripods are not absolutely necessary, but when you are starting off, it will make your life a lot easier. With small lens apertures (high f-numbers) and low ISO settings, there is a good likelihood that you will use slow shutter speeds, which will make handholding very tough and may result in blurry photos. Tripods are also great at making sure that your camera does not move between several exposures. - A Contrast Rich Scene: What you photograph is totally up to you. If I may, I would suggest that when you start off in HDR photography, you should find a landscape scene that has a strong contrast between its shadows and highlight areas. This will allow you to better see the effects HDR can achieve. Your Camera Manual: Find your camera’s manual. There, I said it. Find your camera manual! I know we all hate manuals, but they are the best way to get the most out of your camera. You should know where your manual is and read it -- or even better, study it. This will teach you a ton about your camera as well as how to use its different features, some of which we will explore now. Quick note: look up HDR in your camera manual. Many cameras now offer an in-camera HDR function. If yours does, find the section in your manual and follow the instructions. Then read through below for additional tips and directions. In-camera HDR settings will normally incorporate an exposure bracketing function and then process multiple source images into one final High Dynamic Range finished image file. If your camera doesn't have built-in HDR, or if you prefer to use 3rd-party computer software to produce HDR images, you'll need to set Auto Exposure Bracketing and other features independently. Exercise number one with your newfound camera manual is to discover your Auto Exposure Bracketing (AEB) mode. Why is this necessary, you might ask? AEB is the main component in creating an HDR photo. Let me try and explain why. A bracketing sequence will shoot a series of images that will be over and under exposed, compared to the shot you have set up in your camera. Together, these images will give you a series of photos that are correctly exposed for the brightest, darkest and for the mid-tone areas. Depending on your camera the AEB mode will either shoot 3, 5, 7, or 9 shots. The more images you can get, the better because the potential of capturing all the light in your scene increases. Follow your manual’s instruction on how to turn on and set your AEB mode. - Aperture Priority Mode: If you do not regularly shoot in Manual mode, I would highly suggest setting your camera to Aperture Priority mode (Av on Canon EOS cameras). This mode gives priority to the aperture setting (allowing you to pick it and lock it in) and let the camera determine shutter speed for you. Remember that aperture controls depth of field, so the higher the aperture, the greater the depth of field. In the case of landscape photography, just about any aperture value over f/11 will have your entire frame in focus. Start at f/11 and experiment your way up from there. - Metering Mode: In a nutshell, metering mode is simply how your camera samples light to determine the proper exposure. For the purpose here, it suffices to say that Evaluative Metering will work just fine for you. - White Balance: White balance is incredibly important in photography and getting it wrong can throw an entire image off. Again, for what we are learning here, we can go with Auto White Balance (AWB). But I do highly suggest you look into and learn more about how to use White Balance. - ISO: ISO determines how sensitive your camera is to light. The higher the number, the more sensitive it becomes. There is a downside to ISO though -- the higher the number, the lower your image quality can become. This drop in quality comes from what is referred to as "noise" or the graininess in images. So set your ISO as low as possible. In this case, go with ISO 100. - Self-Timer: Learn how to use the self-timer feature on your camera (another great use of your camera’s manual). The self-timer will get rid of any possible movement caused by holding down the shutter with your finger because you won't be touching it when it snaps. Personally, I prefer to use the 2-second timer. With this setting, you simply press the shutter release, let go of your cameras and 2 seconds later, the camera will take the 3, 5, 7, or 9 exposures in sequence. As you compose your shot, switch your lens to manual focus. While Auto Focus (AF) is an amazing technology, it is not always the best for landscapes. Using manual focus, set your focus point to infinity on the lens. This setting will average out the entire framed scene and bring all into focus. If you have a very important subject within your scene, at this point, my suggestion would be to switch your camera over to “Live View” and use the display’s zoom feature (do not zoom with the lens; zoom with the magnifying button) and zoom all the way in on your subject and focus manually. This will allow you to make sure that your subject is tack sharp (please note that there is a possibility that some of the image might be a little softer). If your lens does not have a "focusing index," which will allow you to manually focus your lens to infinity, I would suggest using your AF to focus, then switching the lens to manual focus and preventing the camera to refocus with each shot. Now that you have your shots, what's next? If your camera can do in-camera HDR and you followed your manual, then you should now have a finished HDR JPEG image. If your camera does not offer in-camera HDR or you chose not to use that feature, then you will have 3, 5, 7, or 9 images that need to be combined. A solid choice would be to use Adobe Photoshop, which has a robust and easy to use HDR feature. There are also plenty of other programs out there that will help you put these images together into an HDR photograph. Definitely plan ahead and look into what you will use to process all the images into HDR composites before going out to shoot. Have fun, experiment and try different setting combinations and processing techniques. There's more detail to see than you thought. - eos 5d mark ii - eos 7d - eos-1d mark iv - white papers - autofocus modes - autofocus techniques - cheat sheets - cinema eos - cmos sensors - eos 50d - eos 5d mark iii - eos 60d - eos c300 - eos c300 pl - eos-1d mark iii - eos-1d x - eos-1ds mark iii - non linear editing - product tutorials - speedlite 580ex ii - speedlite 600ex-rt - xf 305

<urn:uuid:93c00585-ff3c-4095-adf5-ace1797b50a7>

CC-MAIN-2018-13

http://www.learn.usa.canon.com/resources/blogs/2016/20160405-schall-hdr-blog.shtml

s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2018-13/segments/1521257649931.17/warc/CC-MAIN-20180324054204-20180324074204-00710.warc.gz

en

<urn:uuid:93c00585-ff3c-4095-adf5-ace1797b50a7>_9

Tripods are also great at making sure that your camera does not move between several exposures.

Most likely, if you are passionate about photography (and I assume you are because you are reading the Canon Digital Learning Center’s blog), you have come across High Dynamic Range (HDR) photography. HDR photography is the process of taking multiple exposures of the same high-contrast scene at different levels of brightness, then combining them into one image. This single image with a wider range of detail, from the darkest to the brightest areas, is typically impossible with a single exposure. HDR photography is most often used to produce photos that mimic what the human eye is able to see. Now, I say “most often” because there is also a fun and creative side to HDR photography that allows for a lot interesting experimentation, something worth trying out. Back to the actual purpose of this blog entry: to help you get started with HDR photography. So what do you need, besides a camera and a lens, you might ask? - Tripod: Tripods are not absolutely necessary, but when you are starting off, it will make your life a lot easier. With small lens apertures (high f-numbers) and low ISO settings, there is a good likelihood that you will use slow shutter speeds, which will make handholding very tough and may result in blurry photos. Tripods are also great at making sure that your camera does not move between several exposures. - A Contrast Rich Scene: What you photograph is totally up to you. If I may, I would suggest that when you start off in HDR photography, you should find a landscape scene that has a strong contrast between its shadows and highlight areas. This will allow you to better see the effects HDR can achieve. Your Camera Manual: Find your camera’s manual. There, I said it. Find your camera manual! I know we all hate manuals, but they are the best way to get the most out of your camera. You should know where your manual is and read it -- or even better, study it. This will teach you a ton about your camera as well as how to use its different features, some of which we will explore now. Quick note: look up HDR in your camera manual. Many cameras now offer an in-camera HDR function. If yours does, find the section in your manual and follow the instructions. Then read through below for additional tips and directions. In-camera HDR settings will normally incorporate an exposure bracketing function and then process multiple source images into one final High Dynamic Range finished image file. If your camera doesn't have built-in HDR, or if you prefer to use 3rd-party computer software to produce HDR images, you'll need to set Auto Exposure Bracketing and other features independently. Exercise number one with your newfound camera manual is to discover your Auto Exposure Bracketing (AEB) mode. Why is this necessary, you might ask? AEB is the main component in creating an HDR photo. Let me try and explain why. A bracketing sequence will shoot a series of images that will be over and under exposed, compared to the shot you have set up in your camera. Together, these images will give you a series of photos that are correctly exposed for the brightest, darkest and for the mid-tone areas. Depending on your camera the AEB mode will either shoot 3, 5, 7, or 9 shots. The more images you can get, the better because the potential of capturing all the light in your scene increases. Follow your manual’s instruction on how to turn on and set your AEB mode. - Aperture Priority Mode: If you do not regularly shoot in Manual mode, I would highly suggest setting your camera to Aperture Priority mode (Av on Canon EOS cameras). This mode gives priority to the aperture setting (allowing you to pick it and lock it in) and let the camera determine shutter speed for you. Remember that aperture controls depth of field, so the higher the aperture, the greater the depth of field. In the case of landscape photography, just about any aperture value over f/11 will have your entire frame in focus. Start at f/11 and experiment your way up from there. - Metering Mode: In a nutshell, metering mode is simply how your camera samples light to determine the proper exposure. For the purpose here, it suffices to say that Evaluative Metering will work just fine for you. - White Balance: White balance is incredibly important in photography and getting it wrong can throw an entire image off. Again, for what we are learning here, we can go with Auto White Balance (AWB). But I do highly suggest you look into and learn more about how to use White Balance. - ISO: ISO determines how sensitive your camera is to light. The higher the number, the more sensitive it becomes. There is a downside to ISO though -- the higher the number, the lower your image quality can become. This drop in quality comes from what is referred to as "noise" or the graininess in images. So set your ISO as low as possible. In this case, go with ISO 100. - Self-Timer: Learn how to use the self-timer feature on your camera (another great use of your camera’s manual). The self-timer will get rid of any possible movement caused by holding down the shutter with your finger because you won't be touching it when it snaps. Personally, I prefer to use the 2-second timer. With this setting, you simply press the shutter release, let go of your cameras and 2 seconds later, the camera will take the 3, 5, 7, or 9 exposures in sequence. As you compose your shot, switch your lens to manual focus. While Auto Focus (AF) is an amazing technology, it is not always the best for landscapes. Using manual focus, set your focus point to infinity on the lens. This setting will average out the entire framed scene and bring all into focus. If you have a very important subject within your scene, at this point, my suggestion would be to switch your camera over to “Live View” and use the display’s zoom feature (do not zoom with the lens; zoom with the magnifying button) and zoom all the way in on your subject and focus manually. This will allow you to make sure that your subject is tack sharp (please note that there is a possibility that some of the image might be a little softer). If your lens does not have a "focusing index," which will allow you to manually focus your lens to infinity, I would suggest using your AF to focus, then switching the lens to manual focus and preventing the camera to refocus with each shot. Now that you have your shots, what's next? If your camera can do in-camera HDR and you followed your manual, then you should now have a finished HDR JPEG image. If your camera does not offer in-camera HDR or you chose not to use that feature, then you will have 3, 5, 7, or 9 images that need to be combined. A solid choice would be to use Adobe Photoshop, which has a robust and easy to use HDR feature. There are also plenty of other programs out there that will help you put these images together into an HDR photograph. Definitely plan ahead and look into what you will use to process all the images into HDR composites before going out to shoot. Have fun, experiment and try different setting combinations and processing techniques. There's more detail to see than you thought. - eos 5d mark ii - eos 7d - eos-1d mark iv - white papers - autofocus modes - autofocus techniques - cheat sheets - cinema eos - cmos sensors - eos 50d - eos 5d mark iii - eos 60d - eos c300 - eos c300 pl - eos-1d mark iii - eos-1d x - eos-1ds mark iii - non linear editing - product tutorials - speedlite 580ex ii - speedlite 600ex-rt - xf 305

<urn:uuid:93c00585-ff3c-4095-adf5-ace1797b50a7>

CC-MAIN-2018-13

http://www.learn.usa.canon.com/resources/blogs/2016/20160405-schall-hdr-blog.shtml

s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2018-13/segments/1521257649931.17/warc/CC-MAIN-20180324054204-20180324074204-00710.warc.gz

en

<urn:uuid:93c00585-ff3c-4095-adf5-ace1797b50a7>_10

- A Contrast Rich Scene: What you photograph is totally up to you.

Most likely, if you are passionate about photography (and I assume you are because you are reading the Canon Digital Learning Center’s blog), you have come across High Dynamic Range (HDR) photography. HDR photography is the process of taking multiple exposures of the same high-contrast scene at different levels of brightness, then combining them into one image. This single image with a wider range of detail, from the darkest to the brightest areas, is typically impossible with a single exposure. HDR photography is most often used to produce photos that mimic what the human eye is able to see. Now, I say “most often” because there is also a fun and creative side to HDR photography that allows for a lot interesting experimentation, something worth trying out. Back to the actual purpose of this blog entry: to help you get started with HDR photography. So what do you need, besides a camera and a lens, you might ask? - Tripod: Tripods are not absolutely necessary, but when you are starting off, it will make your life a lot easier. With small lens apertures (high f-numbers) and low ISO settings, there is a good likelihood that you will use slow shutter speeds, which will make handholding very tough and may result in blurry photos. Tripods are also great at making sure that your camera does not move between several exposures. - A Contrast Rich Scene: What you photograph is totally up to you. If I may, I would suggest that when you start off in HDR photography, you should find a landscape scene that has a strong contrast between its shadows and highlight areas. This will allow you to better see the effects HDR can achieve. Your Camera Manual: Find your camera’s manual. There, I said it. Find your camera manual! I know we all hate manuals, but they are the best way to get the most out of your camera. You should know where your manual is and read it -- or even better, study it. This will teach you a ton about your camera as well as how to use its different features, some of which we will explore now. Quick note: look up HDR in your camera manual. Many cameras now offer an in-camera HDR function. If yours does, find the section in your manual and follow the instructions. Then read through below for additional tips and directions. In-camera HDR settings will normally incorporate an exposure bracketing function and then process multiple source images into one final High Dynamic Range finished image file. If your camera doesn't have built-in HDR, or if you prefer to use 3rd-party computer software to produce HDR images, you'll need to set Auto Exposure Bracketing and other features independently. Exercise number one with your newfound camera manual is to discover your Auto Exposure Bracketing (AEB) mode. Why is this necessary, you might ask? AEB is the main component in creating an HDR photo. Let me try and explain why. A bracketing sequence will shoot a series of images that will be over and under exposed, compared to the shot you have set up in your camera. Together, these images will give you a series of photos that are correctly exposed for the brightest, darkest and for the mid-tone areas. Depending on your camera the AEB mode will either shoot 3, 5, 7, or 9 shots. The more images you can get, the better because the potential of capturing all the light in your scene increases. Follow your manual’s instruction on how to turn on and set your AEB mode. - Aperture Priority Mode: If you do not regularly shoot in Manual mode, I would highly suggest setting your camera to Aperture Priority mode (Av on Canon EOS cameras). This mode gives priority to the aperture setting (allowing you to pick it and lock it in) and let the camera determine shutter speed for you. Remember that aperture controls depth of field, so the higher the aperture, the greater the depth of field. In the case of landscape photography, just about any aperture value over f/11 will have your entire frame in focus. Start at f/11 and experiment your way up from there. - Metering Mode: In a nutshell, metering mode is simply how your camera samples light to determine the proper exposure. For the purpose here, it suffices to say that Evaluative Metering will work just fine for you. - White Balance: White balance is incredibly important in photography and getting it wrong can throw an entire image off. Again, for what we are learning here, we can go with Auto White Balance (AWB). But I do highly suggest you look into and learn more about how to use White Balance. - ISO: ISO determines how sensitive your camera is to light. The higher the number, the more sensitive it becomes. There is a downside to ISO though -- the higher the number, the lower your image quality can become. This drop in quality comes from what is referred to as "noise" or the graininess in images. So set your ISO as low as possible. In this case, go with ISO 100. - Self-Timer: Learn how to use the self-timer feature on your camera (another great use of your camera’s manual). The self-timer will get rid of any possible movement caused by holding down the shutter with your finger because you won't be touching it when it snaps. Personally, I prefer to use the 2-second timer. With this setting, you simply press the shutter release, let go of your cameras and 2 seconds later, the camera will take the 3, 5, 7, or 9 exposures in sequence. As you compose your shot, switch your lens to manual focus. While Auto Focus (AF) is an amazing technology, it is not always the best for landscapes. Using manual focus, set your focus point to infinity on the lens. This setting will average out the entire framed scene and bring all into focus. If you have a very important subject within your scene, at this point, my suggestion would be to switch your camera over to “Live View” and use the display’s zoom feature (do not zoom with the lens; zoom with the magnifying button) and zoom all the way in on your subject and focus manually. This will allow you to make sure that your subject is tack sharp (please note that there is a possibility that some of the image might be a little softer). If your lens does not have a "focusing index," which will allow you to manually focus your lens to infinity, I would suggest using your AF to focus, then switching the lens to manual focus and preventing the camera to refocus with each shot. Now that you have your shots, what's next? If your camera can do in-camera HDR and you followed your manual, then you should now have a finished HDR JPEG image. If your camera does not offer in-camera HDR or you chose not to use that feature, then you will have 3, 5, 7, or 9 images that need to be combined. A solid choice would be to use Adobe Photoshop, which has a robust and easy to use HDR feature. There are also plenty of other programs out there that will help you put these images together into an HDR photograph. Definitely plan ahead and look into what you will use to process all the images into HDR composites before going out to shoot. Have fun, experiment and try different setting combinations and processing techniques. There's more detail to see than you thought. - eos 5d mark ii - eos 7d - eos-1d mark iv - white papers - autofocus modes - autofocus techniques - cheat sheets - cinema eos - cmos sensors - eos 50d - eos 5d mark iii - eos 60d - eos c300 - eos c300 pl - eos-1d mark iii - eos-1d x - eos-1ds mark iii - non linear editing - product tutorials - speedlite 580ex ii - speedlite 600ex-rt - xf 305

<urn:uuid:93c00585-ff3c-4095-adf5-ace1797b50a7>

CC-MAIN-2018-13

http://www.learn.usa.canon.com/resources/blogs/2016/20160405-schall-hdr-blog.shtml

s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2018-13/segments/1521257649931.17/warc/CC-MAIN-20180324054204-20180324074204-00710.warc.gz

en

<urn:uuid:93c00585-ff3c-4095-adf5-ace1797b50a7>_11

If I may, I would suggest that when you start off in HDR photography, you should find a landscape scene that has a strong contrast between its shadows and highlight areas.

Most likely, if you are passionate about photography (and I assume you are because you are reading the Canon Digital Learning Center’s blog), you have come across High Dynamic Range (HDR) photography. HDR photography is the process of taking multiple exposures of the same high-contrast scene at different levels of brightness, then combining them into one image. This single image with a wider range of detail, from the darkest to the brightest areas, is typically impossible with a single exposure. HDR photography is most often used to produce photos that mimic what the human eye is able to see. Now, I say “most often” because there is also a fun and creative side to HDR photography that allows for a lot interesting experimentation, something worth trying out. Back to the actual purpose of this blog entry: to help you get started with HDR photography. So what do you need, besides a camera and a lens, you might ask? - Tripod: Tripods are not absolutely necessary, but when you are starting off, it will make your life a lot easier. With small lens apertures (high f-numbers) and low ISO settings, there is a good likelihood that you will use slow shutter speeds, which will make handholding very tough and may result in blurry photos. Tripods are also great at making sure that your camera does not move between several exposures. - A Contrast Rich Scene: What you photograph is totally up to you. If I may, I would suggest that when you start off in HDR photography, you should find a landscape scene that has a strong contrast between its shadows and highlight areas. This will allow you to better see the effects HDR can achieve. Your Camera Manual: Find your camera’s manual. There, I said it. Find your camera manual! I know we all hate manuals, but they are the best way to get the most out of your camera. You should know where your manual is and read it -- or even better, study it. This will teach you a ton about your camera as well as how to use its different features, some of which we will explore now. Quick note: look up HDR in your camera manual. Many cameras now offer an in-camera HDR function. If yours does, find the section in your manual and follow the instructions. Then read through below for additional tips and directions. In-camera HDR settings will normally incorporate an exposure bracketing function and then process multiple source images into one final High Dynamic Range finished image file. If your camera doesn't have built-in HDR, or if you prefer to use 3rd-party computer software to produce HDR images, you'll need to set Auto Exposure Bracketing and other features independently. Exercise number one with your newfound camera manual is to discover your Auto Exposure Bracketing (AEB) mode. Why is this necessary, you might ask? AEB is the main component in creating an HDR photo. Let me try and explain why. A bracketing sequence will shoot a series of images that will be over and under exposed, compared to the shot you have set up in your camera. Together, these images will give you a series of photos that are correctly exposed for the brightest, darkest and for the mid-tone areas. Depending on your camera the AEB mode will either shoot 3, 5, 7, or 9 shots. The more images you can get, the better because the potential of capturing all the light in your scene increases. Follow your manual’s instruction on how to turn on and set your AEB mode. - Aperture Priority Mode: If you do not regularly shoot in Manual mode, I would highly suggest setting your camera to Aperture Priority mode (Av on Canon EOS cameras). This mode gives priority to the aperture setting (allowing you to pick it and lock it in) and let the camera determine shutter speed for you. Remember that aperture controls depth of field, so the higher the aperture, the greater the depth of field. In the case of landscape photography, just about any aperture value over f/11 will have your entire frame in focus. Start at f/11 and experiment your way up from there. - Metering Mode: In a nutshell, metering mode is simply how your camera samples light to determine the proper exposure. For the purpose here, it suffices to say that Evaluative Metering will work just fine for you. - White Balance: White balance is incredibly important in photography and getting it wrong can throw an entire image off. Again, for what we are learning here, we can go with Auto White Balance (AWB). But I do highly suggest you look into and learn more about how to use White Balance. - ISO: ISO determines how sensitive your camera is to light. The higher the number, the more sensitive it becomes. There is a downside to ISO though -- the higher the number, the lower your image quality can become. This drop in quality comes from what is referred to as "noise" or the graininess in images. So set your ISO as low as possible. In this case, go with ISO 100. - Self-Timer: Learn how to use the self-timer feature on your camera (another great use of your camera’s manual). The self-timer will get rid of any possible movement caused by holding down the shutter with your finger because you won't be touching it when it snaps. Personally, I prefer to use the 2-second timer. With this setting, you simply press the shutter release, let go of your cameras and 2 seconds later, the camera will take the 3, 5, 7, or 9 exposures in sequence. As you compose your shot, switch your lens to manual focus. While Auto Focus (AF) is an amazing technology, it is not always the best for landscapes. Using manual focus, set your focus point to infinity on the lens. This setting will average out the entire framed scene and bring all into focus. If you have a very important subject within your scene, at this point, my suggestion would be to switch your camera over to “Live View” and use the display’s zoom feature (do not zoom with the lens; zoom with the magnifying button) and zoom all the way in on your subject and focus manually. This will allow you to make sure that your subject is tack sharp (please note that there is a possibility that some of the image might be a little softer). If your lens does not have a "focusing index," which will allow you to manually focus your lens to infinity, I would suggest using your AF to focus, then switching the lens to manual focus and preventing the camera to refocus with each shot. Now that you have your shots, what's next? If your camera can do in-camera HDR and you followed your manual, then you should now have a finished HDR JPEG image. If your camera does not offer in-camera HDR or you chose not to use that feature, then you will have 3, 5, 7, or 9 images that need to be combined. A solid choice would be to use Adobe Photoshop, which has a robust and easy to use HDR feature. There are also plenty of other programs out there that will help you put these images together into an HDR photograph. Definitely plan ahead and look into what you will use to process all the images into HDR composites before going out to shoot. Have fun, experiment and try different setting combinations and processing techniques. There's more detail to see than you thought. - eos 5d mark ii - eos 7d - eos-1d mark iv - white papers - autofocus modes - autofocus techniques - cheat sheets - cinema eos - cmos sensors - eos 50d - eos 5d mark iii - eos 60d - eos c300 - eos c300 pl - eos-1d mark iii - eos-1d x - eos-1ds mark iii - non linear editing - product tutorials - speedlite 580ex ii - speedlite 600ex-rt - xf 305

<urn:uuid:93c00585-ff3c-4095-adf5-ace1797b50a7>

CC-MAIN-2018-13

http://www.learn.usa.canon.com/resources/blogs/2016/20160405-schall-hdr-blog.shtml

s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2018-13/segments/1521257649931.17/warc/CC-MAIN-20180324054204-20180324074204-00710.warc.gz

en

<urn:uuid:93c00585-ff3c-4095-adf5-ace1797b50a7>_12

This will allow you to better see the effects HDR can achieve.

Most likely, if you are passionate about photography (and I assume you are because you are reading the Canon Digital Learning Center’s blog), you have come across High Dynamic Range (HDR) photography. HDR photography is the process of taking multiple exposures of the same high-contrast scene at different levels of brightness, then combining them into one image. This single image with a wider range of detail, from the darkest to the brightest areas, is typically impossible with a single exposure. HDR photography is most often used to produce photos that mimic what the human eye is able to see. Now, I say “most often” because there is also a fun and creative side to HDR photography that allows for a lot interesting experimentation, something worth trying out. Back to the actual purpose of this blog entry: to help you get started with HDR photography. So what do you need, besides a camera and a lens, you might ask? - Tripod: Tripods are not absolutely necessary, but when you are starting off, it will make your life a lot easier. With small lens apertures (high f-numbers) and low ISO settings, there is a good likelihood that you will use slow shutter speeds, which will make handholding very tough and may result in blurry photos. Tripods are also great at making sure that your camera does not move between several exposures. - A Contrast Rich Scene: What you photograph is totally up to you. If I may, I would suggest that when you start off in HDR photography, you should find a landscape scene that has a strong contrast between its shadows and highlight areas. This will allow you to better see the effects HDR can achieve. Your Camera Manual: Find your camera’s manual. There, I said it. Find your camera manual! I know we all hate manuals, but they are the best way to get the most out of your camera. You should know where your manual is and read it -- or even better, study it. This will teach you a ton about your camera as well as how to use its different features, some of which we will explore now. Quick note: look up HDR in your camera manual. Many cameras now offer an in-camera HDR function. If yours does, find the section in your manual and follow the instructions. Then read through below for additional tips and directions. In-camera HDR settings will normally incorporate an exposure bracketing function and then process multiple source images into one final High Dynamic Range finished image file. If your camera doesn't have built-in HDR, or if you prefer to use 3rd-party computer software to produce HDR images, you'll need to set Auto Exposure Bracketing and other features independently. Exercise number one with your newfound camera manual is to discover your Auto Exposure Bracketing (AEB) mode. Why is this necessary, you might ask? AEB is the main component in creating an HDR photo. Let me try and explain why. A bracketing sequence will shoot a series of images that will be over and under exposed, compared to the shot you have set up in your camera. Together, these images will give you a series of photos that are correctly exposed for the brightest, darkest and for the mid-tone areas. Depending on your camera the AEB mode will either shoot 3, 5, 7, or 9 shots. The more images you can get, the better because the potential of capturing all the light in your scene increases. Follow your manual’s instruction on how to turn on and set your AEB mode. - Aperture Priority Mode: If you do not regularly shoot in Manual mode, I would highly suggest setting your camera to Aperture Priority mode (Av on Canon EOS cameras). This mode gives priority to the aperture setting (allowing you to pick it and lock it in) and let the camera determine shutter speed for you. Remember that aperture controls depth of field, so the higher the aperture, the greater the depth of field. In the case of landscape photography, just about any aperture value over f/11 will have your entire frame in focus. Start at f/11 and experiment your way up from there. - Metering Mode: In a nutshell, metering mode is simply how your camera samples light to determine the proper exposure. For the purpose here, it suffices to say that Evaluative Metering will work just fine for you. - White Balance: White balance is incredibly important in photography and getting it wrong can throw an entire image off. Again, for what we are learning here, we can go with Auto White Balance (AWB). But I do highly suggest you look into and learn more about how to use White Balance. - ISO: ISO determines how sensitive your camera is to light. The higher the number, the more sensitive it becomes. There is a downside to ISO though -- the higher the number, the lower your image quality can become. This drop in quality comes from what is referred to as "noise" or the graininess in images. So set your ISO as low as possible. In this case, go with ISO 100. - Self-Timer: Learn how to use the self-timer feature on your camera (another great use of your camera’s manual). The self-timer will get rid of any possible movement caused by holding down the shutter with your finger because you won't be touching it when it snaps. Personally, I prefer to use the 2-second timer. With this setting, you simply press the shutter release, let go of your cameras and 2 seconds later, the camera will take the 3, 5, 7, or 9 exposures in sequence. As you compose your shot, switch your lens to manual focus. While Auto Focus (AF) is an amazing technology, it is not always the best for landscapes. Using manual focus, set your focus point to infinity on the lens. This setting will average out the entire framed scene and bring all into focus. If you have a very important subject within your scene, at this point, my suggestion would be to switch your camera over to “Live View” and use the display’s zoom feature (do not zoom with the lens; zoom with the magnifying button) and zoom all the way in on your subject and focus manually. This will allow you to make sure that your subject is tack sharp (please note that there is a possibility that some of the image might be a little softer). If your lens does not have a "focusing index," which will allow you to manually focus your lens to infinity, I would suggest using your AF to focus, then switching the lens to manual focus and preventing the camera to refocus with each shot. Now that you have your shots, what's next? If your camera can do in-camera HDR and you followed your manual, then you should now have a finished HDR JPEG image. If your camera does not offer in-camera HDR or you chose not to use that feature, then you will have 3, 5, 7, or 9 images that need to be combined. A solid choice would be to use Adobe Photoshop, which has a robust and easy to use HDR feature. There are also plenty of other programs out there that will help you put these images together into an HDR photograph. Definitely plan ahead and look into what you will use to process all the images into HDR composites before going out to shoot. Have fun, experiment and try different setting combinations and processing techniques. There's more detail to see than you thought. - eos 5d mark ii - eos 7d - eos-1d mark iv - white papers - autofocus modes - autofocus techniques - cheat sheets - cinema eos - cmos sensors - eos 50d - eos 5d mark iii - eos 60d - eos c300 - eos c300 pl - eos-1d mark iii - eos-1d x - eos-1ds mark iii - non linear editing - product tutorials - speedlite 580ex ii - speedlite 600ex-rt - xf 305

<urn:uuid:93c00585-ff3c-4095-adf5-ace1797b50a7>

CC-MAIN-2018-13

http://www.learn.usa.canon.com/resources/blogs/2016/20160405-schall-hdr-blog.shtml

s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2018-13/segments/1521257649931.17/warc/CC-MAIN-20180324054204-20180324074204-00710.warc.gz

en

<urn:uuid:93c00585-ff3c-4095-adf5-ace1797b50a7>_13

Your Camera Manual: Find your camera’s manual.

Most likely, if you are passionate about photography (and I assume you are because you are reading the Canon Digital Learning Center’s blog), you have come across High Dynamic Range (HDR) photography. HDR photography is the process of taking multiple exposures of the same high-contrast scene at different levels of brightness, then combining them into one image. This single image with a wider range of detail, from the darkest to the brightest areas, is typically impossible with a single exposure. HDR photography is most often used to produce photos that mimic what the human eye is able to see. Now, I say “most often” because there is also a fun and creative side to HDR photography that allows for a lot interesting experimentation, something worth trying out. Back to the actual purpose of this blog entry: to help you get started with HDR photography. So what do you need, besides a camera and a lens, you might ask? - Tripod: Tripods are not absolutely necessary, but when you are starting off, it will make your life a lot easier. With small lens apertures (high f-numbers) and low ISO settings, there is a good likelihood that you will use slow shutter speeds, which will make handholding very tough and may result in blurry photos. Tripods are also great at making sure that your camera does not move between several exposures. - A Contrast Rich Scene: What you photograph is totally up to you. If I may, I would suggest that when you start off in HDR photography, you should find a landscape scene that has a strong contrast between its shadows and highlight areas. This will allow you to better see the effects HDR can achieve. Your Camera Manual: Find your camera’s manual. There, I said it. Find your camera manual! I know we all hate manuals, but they are the best way to get the most out of your camera. You should know where your manual is and read it -- or even better, study it. This will teach you a ton about your camera as well as how to use its different features, some of which we will explore now. Quick note: look up HDR in your camera manual. Many cameras now offer an in-camera HDR function. If yours does, find the section in your manual and follow the instructions. Then read through below for additional tips and directions. In-camera HDR settings will normally incorporate an exposure bracketing function and then process multiple source images into one final High Dynamic Range finished image file. If your camera doesn't have built-in HDR, or if you prefer to use 3rd-party computer software to produce HDR images, you'll need to set Auto Exposure Bracketing and other features independently. Exercise number one with your newfound camera manual is to discover your Auto Exposure Bracketing (AEB) mode. Why is this necessary, you might ask? AEB is the main component in creating an HDR photo. Let me try and explain why. A bracketing sequence will shoot a series of images that will be over and under exposed, compared to the shot you have set up in your camera. Together, these images will give you a series of photos that are correctly exposed for the brightest, darkest and for the mid-tone areas. Depending on your camera the AEB mode will either shoot 3, 5, 7, or 9 shots. The more images you can get, the better because the potential of capturing all the light in your scene increases. Follow your manual’s instruction on how to turn on and set your AEB mode. - Aperture Priority Mode: If you do not regularly shoot in Manual mode, I would highly suggest setting your camera to Aperture Priority mode (Av on Canon EOS cameras). This mode gives priority to the aperture setting (allowing you to pick it and lock it in) and let the camera determine shutter speed for you. Remember that aperture controls depth of field, so the higher the aperture, the greater the depth of field. In the case of landscape photography, just about any aperture value over f/11 will have your entire frame in focus. Start at f/11 and experiment your way up from there. - Metering Mode: In a nutshell, metering mode is simply how your camera samples light to determine the proper exposure. For the purpose here, it suffices to say that Evaluative Metering will work just fine for you. - White Balance: White balance is incredibly important in photography and getting it wrong can throw an entire image off. Again, for what we are learning here, we can go with Auto White Balance (AWB). But I do highly suggest you look into and learn more about how to use White Balance. - ISO: ISO determines how sensitive your camera is to light. The higher the number, the more sensitive it becomes. There is a downside to ISO though -- the higher the number, the lower your image quality can become. This drop in quality comes from what is referred to as "noise" or the graininess in images. So set your ISO as low as possible. In this case, go with ISO 100. - Self-Timer: Learn how to use the self-timer feature on your camera (another great use of your camera’s manual). The self-timer will get rid of any possible movement caused by holding down the shutter with your finger because you won't be touching it when it snaps. Personally, I prefer to use the 2-second timer. With this setting, you simply press the shutter release, let go of your cameras and 2 seconds later, the camera will take the 3, 5, 7, or 9 exposures in sequence. As you compose your shot, switch your lens to manual focus. While Auto Focus (AF) is an amazing technology, it is not always the best for landscapes. Using manual focus, set your focus point to infinity on the lens. This setting will average out the entire framed scene and bring all into focus. If you have a very important subject within your scene, at this point, my suggestion would be to switch your camera over to “Live View” and use the display’s zoom feature (do not zoom with the lens; zoom with the magnifying button) and zoom all the way in on your subject and focus manually. This will allow you to make sure that your subject is tack sharp (please note that there is a possibility that some of the image might be a little softer). If your lens does not have a "focusing index," which will allow you to manually focus your lens to infinity, I would suggest using your AF to focus, then switching the lens to manual focus and preventing the camera to refocus with each shot. Now that you have your shots, what's next? If your camera can do in-camera HDR and you followed your manual, then you should now have a finished HDR JPEG image. If your camera does not offer in-camera HDR or you chose not to use that feature, then you will have 3, 5, 7, or 9 images that need to be combined. A solid choice would be to use Adobe Photoshop, which has a robust and easy to use HDR feature. There are also plenty of other programs out there that will help you put these images together into an HDR photograph. Definitely plan ahead and look into what you will use to process all the images into HDR composites before going out to shoot. Have fun, experiment and try different setting combinations and processing techniques. There's more detail to see than you thought. - eos 5d mark ii - eos 7d - eos-1d mark iv - white papers - autofocus modes - autofocus techniques - cheat sheets - cinema eos - cmos sensors - eos 50d - eos 5d mark iii - eos 60d - eos c300 - eos c300 pl - eos-1d mark iii - eos-1d x - eos-1ds mark iii - non linear editing - product tutorials - speedlite 580ex ii - speedlite 600ex-rt - xf 305

<urn:uuid:93c00585-ff3c-4095-adf5-ace1797b50a7>

CC-MAIN-2018-13

http://www.learn.usa.canon.com/resources/blogs/2016/20160405-schall-hdr-blog.shtml

s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2018-13/segments/1521257649931.17/warc/CC-MAIN-20180324054204-20180324074204-00710.warc.gz

en

<urn:uuid:93c00585-ff3c-4095-adf5-ace1797b50a7>_16

I know we all hate manuals, but they are the best way to get the most out of your camera.

Most likely, if you are passionate about photography (and I assume you are because you are reading the Canon Digital Learning Center’s blog), you have come across High Dynamic Range (HDR) photography. HDR photography is the process of taking multiple exposures of the same high-contrast scene at different levels of brightness, then combining them into one image. This single image with a wider range of detail, from the darkest to the brightest areas, is typically impossible with a single exposure. HDR photography is most often used to produce photos that mimic what the human eye is able to see. Now, I say “most often” because there is also a fun and creative side to HDR photography that allows for a lot interesting experimentation, something worth trying out. Back to the actual purpose of this blog entry: to help you get started with HDR photography. So what do you need, besides a camera and a lens, you might ask? - Tripod: Tripods are not absolutely necessary, but when you are starting off, it will make your life a lot easier. With small lens apertures (high f-numbers) and low ISO settings, there is a good likelihood that you will use slow shutter speeds, which will make handholding very tough and may result in blurry photos. Tripods are also great at making sure that your camera does not move between several exposures. - A Contrast Rich Scene: What you photograph is totally up to you. If I may, I would suggest that when you start off in HDR photography, you should find a landscape scene that has a strong contrast between its shadows and highlight areas. This will allow you to better see the effects HDR can achieve. Your Camera Manual: Find your camera’s manual. There, I said it. Find your camera manual! I know we all hate manuals, but they are the best way to get the most out of your camera. You should know where your manual is and read it -- or even better, study it. This will teach you a ton about your camera as well as how to use its different features, some of which we will explore now. Quick note: look up HDR in your camera manual. Many cameras now offer an in-camera HDR function. If yours does, find the section in your manual and follow the instructions. Then read through below for additional tips and directions. In-camera HDR settings will normally incorporate an exposure bracketing function and then process multiple source images into one final High Dynamic Range finished image file. If your camera doesn't have built-in HDR, or if you prefer to use 3rd-party computer software to produce HDR images, you'll need to set Auto Exposure Bracketing and other features independently. Exercise number one with your newfound camera manual is to discover your Auto Exposure Bracketing (AEB) mode. Why is this necessary, you might ask? AEB is the main component in creating an HDR photo. Let me try and explain why. A bracketing sequence will shoot a series of images that will be over and under exposed, compared to the shot you have set up in your camera. Together, these images will give you a series of photos that are correctly exposed for the brightest, darkest and for the mid-tone areas. Depending on your camera the AEB mode will either shoot 3, 5, 7, or 9 shots. The more images you can get, the better because the potential of capturing all the light in your scene increases. Follow your manual’s instruction on how to turn on and set your AEB mode. - Aperture Priority Mode: If you do not regularly shoot in Manual mode, I would highly suggest setting your camera to Aperture Priority mode (Av on Canon EOS cameras). This mode gives priority to the aperture setting (allowing you to pick it and lock it in) and let the camera determine shutter speed for you. Remember that aperture controls depth of field, so the higher the aperture, the greater the depth of field. In the case of landscape photography, just about any aperture value over f/11 will have your entire frame in focus. Start at f/11 and experiment your way up from there. - Metering Mode: In a nutshell, metering mode is simply how your camera samples light to determine the proper exposure. For the purpose here, it suffices to say that Evaluative Metering will work just fine for you. - White Balance: White balance is incredibly important in photography and getting it wrong can throw an entire image off. Again, for what we are learning here, we can go with Auto White Balance (AWB). But I do highly suggest you look into and learn more about how to use White Balance. - ISO: ISO determines how sensitive your camera is to light. The higher the number, the more sensitive it becomes. There is a downside to ISO though -- the higher the number, the lower your image quality can become. This drop in quality comes from what is referred to as "noise" or the graininess in images. So set your ISO as low as possible. In this case, go with ISO 100. - Self-Timer: Learn how to use the self-timer feature on your camera (another great use of your camera’s manual). The self-timer will get rid of any possible movement caused by holding down the shutter with your finger because you won't be touching it when it snaps. Personally, I prefer to use the 2-second timer. With this setting, you simply press the shutter release, let go of your cameras and 2 seconds later, the camera will take the 3, 5, 7, or 9 exposures in sequence. As you compose your shot, switch your lens to manual focus. While Auto Focus (AF) is an amazing technology, it is not always the best for landscapes. Using manual focus, set your focus point to infinity on the lens. This setting will average out the entire framed scene and bring all into focus. If you have a very important subject within your scene, at this point, my suggestion would be to switch your camera over to “Live View” and use the display’s zoom feature (do not zoom with the lens; zoom with the magnifying button) and zoom all the way in on your subject and focus manually. This will allow you to make sure that your subject is tack sharp (please note that there is a possibility that some of the image might be a little softer). If your lens does not have a "focusing index," which will allow you to manually focus your lens to infinity, I would suggest using your AF to focus, then switching the lens to manual focus and preventing the camera to refocus with each shot. Now that you have your shots, what's next? If your camera can do in-camera HDR and you followed your manual, then you should now have a finished HDR JPEG image. If your camera does not offer in-camera HDR or you chose not to use that feature, then you will have 3, 5, 7, or 9 images that need to be combined. A solid choice would be to use Adobe Photoshop, which has a robust and easy to use HDR feature. There are also plenty of other programs out there that will help you put these images together into an HDR photograph. Definitely plan ahead and look into what you will use to process all the images into HDR composites before going out to shoot. Have fun, experiment and try different setting combinations and processing techniques. There's more detail to see than you thought. - eos 5d mark ii - eos 7d - eos-1d mark iv - white papers - autofocus modes - autofocus techniques - cheat sheets - cinema eos - cmos sensors - eos 50d - eos 5d mark iii - eos 60d - eos c300 - eos c300 pl - eos-1d mark iii - eos-1d x - eos-1ds mark iii - non linear editing - product tutorials - speedlite 580ex ii - speedlite 600ex-rt - xf 305

<urn:uuid:93c00585-ff3c-4095-adf5-ace1797b50a7>

CC-MAIN-2018-13

http://www.learn.usa.canon.com/resources/blogs/2016/20160405-schall-hdr-blog.shtml

s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2018-13/segments/1521257649931.17/warc/CC-MAIN-20180324054204-20180324074204-00710.warc.gz

en

<urn:uuid:93c00585-ff3c-4095-adf5-ace1797b50a7>_17

You should know where your manual is and read it -- or even better, study it.

Most likely, if you are passionate about photography (and I assume you are because you are reading the Canon Digital Learning Center’s blog), you have come across High Dynamic Range (HDR) photography. HDR photography is the process of taking multiple exposures of the same high-contrast scene at different levels of brightness, then combining them into one image. This single image with a wider range of detail, from the darkest to the brightest areas, is typically impossible with a single exposure. HDR photography is most often used to produce photos that mimic what the human eye is able to see. Now, I say “most often” because there is also a fun and creative side to HDR photography that allows for a lot interesting experimentation, something worth trying out. Back to the actual purpose of this blog entry: to help you get started with HDR photography. So what do you need, besides a camera and a lens, you might ask? - Tripod: Tripods are not absolutely necessary, but when you are starting off, it will make your life a lot easier. With small lens apertures (high f-numbers) and low ISO settings, there is a good likelihood that you will use slow shutter speeds, which will make handholding very tough and may result in blurry photos. Tripods are also great at making sure that your camera does not move between several exposures. - A Contrast Rich Scene: What you photograph is totally up to you. If I may, I would suggest that when you start off in HDR photography, you should find a landscape scene that has a strong contrast between its shadows and highlight areas. This will allow you to better see the effects HDR can achieve. Your Camera Manual: Find your camera’s manual. There, I said it. Find your camera manual! I know we all hate manuals, but they are the best way to get the most out of your camera. You should know where your manual is and read it -- or even better, study it. This will teach you a ton about your camera as well as how to use its different features, some of which we will explore now. Quick note: look up HDR in your camera manual. Many cameras now offer an in-camera HDR function. If yours does, find the section in your manual and follow the instructions. Then read through below for additional tips and directions. In-camera HDR settings will normally incorporate an exposure bracketing function and then process multiple source images into one final High Dynamic Range finished image file. If your camera doesn't have built-in HDR, or if you prefer to use 3rd-party computer software to produce HDR images, you'll need to set Auto Exposure Bracketing and other features independently. Exercise number one with your newfound camera manual is to discover your Auto Exposure Bracketing (AEB) mode. Why is this necessary, you might ask? AEB is the main component in creating an HDR photo. Let me try and explain why. A bracketing sequence will shoot a series of images that will be over and under exposed, compared to the shot you have set up in your camera. Together, these images will give you a series of photos that are correctly exposed for the brightest, darkest and for the mid-tone areas. Depending on your camera the AEB mode will either shoot 3, 5, 7, or 9 shots. The more images you can get, the better because the potential of capturing all the light in your scene increases. Follow your manual’s instruction on how to turn on and set your AEB mode. - Aperture Priority Mode: If you do not regularly shoot in Manual mode, I would highly suggest setting your camera to Aperture Priority mode (Av on Canon EOS cameras). This mode gives priority to the aperture setting (allowing you to pick it and lock it in) and let the camera determine shutter speed for you. Remember that aperture controls depth of field, so the higher the aperture, the greater the depth of field. In the case of landscape photography, just about any aperture value over f/11 will have your entire frame in focus. Start at f/11 and experiment your way up from there. - Metering Mode: In a nutshell, metering mode is simply how your camera samples light to determine the proper exposure. For the purpose here, it suffices to say that Evaluative Metering will work just fine for you. - White Balance: White balance is incredibly important in photography and getting it wrong can throw an entire image off. Again, for what we are learning here, we can go with Auto White Balance (AWB). But I do highly suggest you look into and learn more about how to use White Balance. - ISO: ISO determines how sensitive your camera is to light. The higher the number, the more sensitive it becomes. There is a downside to ISO though -- the higher the number, the lower your image quality can become. This drop in quality comes from what is referred to as "noise" or the graininess in images. So set your ISO as low as possible. In this case, go with ISO 100. - Self-Timer: Learn how to use the self-timer feature on your camera (another great use of your camera’s manual). The self-timer will get rid of any possible movement caused by holding down the shutter with your finger because you won't be touching it when it snaps. Personally, I prefer to use the 2-second timer. With this setting, you simply press the shutter release, let go of your cameras and 2 seconds later, the camera will take the 3, 5, 7, or 9 exposures in sequence. As you compose your shot, switch your lens to manual focus. While Auto Focus (AF) is an amazing technology, it is not always the best for landscapes. Using manual focus, set your focus point to infinity on the lens. This setting will average out the entire framed scene and bring all into focus. If you have a very important subject within your scene, at this point, my suggestion would be to switch your camera over to “Live View” and use the display’s zoom feature (do not zoom with the lens; zoom with the magnifying button) and zoom all the way in on your subject and focus manually. This will allow you to make sure that your subject is tack sharp (please note that there is a possibility that some of the image might be a little softer). If your lens does not have a "focusing index," which will allow you to manually focus your lens to infinity, I would suggest using your AF to focus, then switching the lens to manual focus and preventing the camera to refocus with each shot. Now that you have your shots, what's next? If your camera can do in-camera HDR and you followed your manual, then you should now have a finished HDR JPEG image. If your camera does not offer in-camera HDR or you chose not to use that feature, then you will have 3, 5, 7, or 9 images that need to be combined. A solid choice would be to use Adobe Photoshop, which has a robust and easy to use HDR feature. There are also plenty of other programs out there that will help you put these images together into an HDR photograph. Definitely plan ahead and look into what you will use to process all the images into HDR composites before going out to shoot. Have fun, experiment and try different setting combinations and processing techniques. There's more detail to see than you thought. - eos 5d mark ii - eos 7d - eos-1d mark iv - white papers - autofocus modes - autofocus techniques - cheat sheets - cinema eos - cmos sensors - eos 50d - eos 5d mark iii - eos 60d - eos c300 - eos c300 pl - eos-1d mark iii - eos-1d x - eos-1ds mark iii - non linear editing - product tutorials - speedlite 580ex ii - speedlite 600ex-rt - xf 305

<urn:uuid:93c00585-ff3c-4095-adf5-ace1797b50a7>

CC-MAIN-2018-13

http://www.learn.usa.canon.com/resources/blogs/2016/20160405-schall-hdr-blog.shtml

s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2018-13/segments/1521257649931.17/warc/CC-MAIN-20180324054204-20180324074204-00710.warc.gz

en

<urn:uuid:93c00585-ff3c-4095-adf5-ace1797b50a7>_18

This will teach you a ton about your camera as well as how to use its different features, some of which we will explore now.

Most likely, if you are passionate about photography (and I assume you are because you are reading the Canon Digital Learning Center’s blog), you have come across High Dynamic Range (HDR) photography. HDR photography is the process of taking multiple exposures of the same high-contrast scene at different levels of brightness, then combining them into one image. This single image with a wider range of detail, from the darkest to the brightest areas, is typically impossible with a single exposure. HDR photography is most often used to produce photos that mimic what the human eye is able to see. Now, I say “most often” because there is also a fun and creative side to HDR photography that allows for a lot interesting experimentation, something worth trying out. Back to the actual purpose of this blog entry: to help you get started with HDR photography. So what do you need, besides a camera and a lens, you might ask? - Tripod: Tripods are not absolutely necessary, but when you are starting off, it will make your life a lot easier. With small lens apertures (high f-numbers) and low ISO settings, there is a good likelihood that you will use slow shutter speeds, which will make handholding very tough and may result in blurry photos. Tripods are also great at making sure that your camera does not move between several exposures. - A Contrast Rich Scene: What you photograph is totally up to you. If I may, I would suggest that when you start off in HDR photography, you should find a landscape scene that has a strong contrast between its shadows and highlight areas. This will allow you to better see the effects HDR can achieve. Your Camera Manual: Find your camera’s manual. There, I said it. Find your camera manual! I know we all hate manuals, but they are the best way to get the most out of your camera. You should know where your manual is and read it -- or even better, study it. This will teach you a ton about your camera as well as how to use its different features, some of which we will explore now. Quick note: look up HDR in your camera manual. Many cameras now offer an in-camera HDR function. If yours does, find the section in your manual and follow the instructions. Then read through below for additional tips and directions. In-camera HDR settings will normally incorporate an exposure bracketing function and then process multiple source images into one final High Dynamic Range finished image file. If your camera doesn't have built-in HDR, or if you prefer to use 3rd-party computer software to produce HDR images, you'll need to set Auto Exposure Bracketing and other features independently. Exercise number one with your newfound camera manual is to discover your Auto Exposure Bracketing (AEB) mode. Why is this necessary, you might ask? AEB is the main component in creating an HDR photo. Let me try and explain why. A bracketing sequence will shoot a series of images that will be over and under exposed, compared to the shot you have set up in your camera. Together, these images will give you a series of photos that are correctly exposed for the brightest, darkest and for the mid-tone areas. Depending on your camera the AEB mode will either shoot 3, 5, 7, or 9 shots. The more images you can get, the better because the potential of capturing all the light in your scene increases. Follow your manual’s instruction on how to turn on and set your AEB mode. - Aperture Priority Mode: If you do not regularly shoot in Manual mode, I would highly suggest setting your camera to Aperture Priority mode (Av on Canon EOS cameras). This mode gives priority to the aperture setting (allowing you to pick it and lock it in) and let the camera determine shutter speed for you. Remember that aperture controls depth of field, so the higher the aperture, the greater the depth of field. In the case of landscape photography, just about any aperture value over f/11 will have your entire frame in focus. Start at f/11 and experiment your way up from there. - Metering Mode: In a nutshell, metering mode is simply how your camera samples light to determine the proper exposure. For the purpose here, it suffices to say that Evaluative Metering will work just fine for you. - White Balance: White balance is incredibly important in photography and getting it wrong can throw an entire image off. Again, for what we are learning here, we can go with Auto White Balance (AWB). But I do highly suggest you look into and learn more about how to use White Balance. - ISO: ISO determines how sensitive your camera is to light. The higher the number, the more sensitive it becomes. There is a downside to ISO though -- the higher the number, the lower your image quality can become. This drop in quality comes from what is referred to as "noise" or the graininess in images. So set your ISO as low as possible. In this case, go with ISO 100. - Self-Timer: Learn how to use the self-timer feature on your camera (another great use of your camera’s manual). The self-timer will get rid of any possible movement caused by holding down the shutter with your finger because you won't be touching it when it snaps. Personally, I prefer to use the 2-second timer. With this setting, you simply press the shutter release, let go of your cameras and 2 seconds later, the camera will take the 3, 5, 7, or 9 exposures in sequence. As you compose your shot, switch your lens to manual focus. While Auto Focus (AF) is an amazing technology, it is not always the best for landscapes. Using manual focus, set your focus point to infinity on the lens. This setting will average out the entire framed scene and bring all into focus. If you have a very important subject within your scene, at this point, my suggestion would be to switch your camera over to “Live View” and use the display’s zoom feature (do not zoom with the lens; zoom with the magnifying button) and zoom all the way in on your subject and focus manually. This will allow you to make sure that your subject is tack sharp (please note that there is a possibility that some of the image might be a little softer). If your lens does not have a "focusing index," which will allow you to manually focus your lens to infinity, I would suggest using your AF to focus, then switching the lens to manual focus and preventing the camera to refocus with each shot. Now that you have your shots, what's next? If your camera can do in-camera HDR and you followed your manual, then you should now have a finished HDR JPEG image. If your camera does not offer in-camera HDR or you chose not to use that feature, then you will have 3, 5, 7, or 9 images that need to be combined. A solid choice would be to use Adobe Photoshop, which has a robust and easy to use HDR feature. There are also plenty of other programs out there that will help you put these images together into an HDR photograph. Definitely plan ahead and look into what you will use to process all the images into HDR composites before going out to shoot. Have fun, experiment and try different setting combinations and processing techniques. There's more detail to see than you thought. - eos 5d mark ii - eos 7d - eos-1d mark iv - white papers - autofocus modes - autofocus techniques - cheat sheets - cinema eos - cmos sensors - eos 50d - eos 5d mark iii - eos 60d - eos c300 - eos c300 pl - eos-1d mark iii - eos-1d x - eos-1ds mark iii - non linear editing - product tutorials - speedlite 580ex ii - speedlite 600ex-rt - xf 305

<urn:uuid:93c00585-ff3c-4095-adf5-ace1797b50a7>

CC-MAIN-2018-13

http://www.learn.usa.canon.com/resources/blogs/2016/20160405-schall-hdr-blog.shtml

s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2018-13/segments/1521257649931.17/warc/CC-MAIN-20180324054204-20180324074204-00710.warc.gz

en

<urn:uuid:93c00585-ff3c-4095-adf5-ace1797b50a7>_19

Quick note: look up HDR in your camera manual.