Secular laws.

Symbolising the two "levels" of thinking.

Symbolising the two “levels” of thinking.

In the case of secular laws we have, over centuries, made significant progress towards being a civilized society. However, in many countries these are flouted behind the scenes: behind the facade of justice presented to the world and often boasted about.


About Ian Gardner

Ian Gardner was born on the 20th February 1934 in Sri Lanka, then Ceylon, and christened Basil Ian Gunewardene. He was born two months prematurely and nearly died five times in his first two months. He moved to Australia in September 1969 where he changed his surname to Gardner. From childhood he had an enquiring mind and an innate interest in the supernatural. Since 1986, nineteen years of meditation, "searching within", reading and revelations have culminated in this free book which has been nine years in the making. Further writings followed and all his writings are available to all on the Internet free of charge. There is more information in the preface of the book.
This entry was posted in philosophy and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Secular laws.

  1. Abandon TV says:

    The next logical step is for us to turn laws into rules. By rules I am implying the universality of the rule (such as the rule that all objects are attracted to the earth), as opposed to the non-universality of our current laws (such as the law which says that no one is allowed to steal from our wages except the state).

    Currently our society has no rules, it only has rulers! These rulers rule us through laws. A law is just an opinion backed by the threat or use of violence (clubs, tasers, guns and cages etc). A law can reflect moral rules, but it does not need to. Throughout history there have been (and still are) plenty of laws which blatantly violate moral rules.

    We are taught in (government run) schools that laws are founded upon basic universal moral rules, such as “it’s immoral to steal” and “it’s immoral to initiate force” (assault, murder, kidnap, imprison, rape, coerce etc). However, unlike these rules, which are universal, the laws derived from them are not. Through laws governments are able to prohibit stealing and initiating force for everyone but themselves. In effect they are actually using laws (opinions backed by the threat or use of violence) to enforce their own monopoly on the legal right to violate moral rules.

    Creating a monopoly on X means you have to prevent everyone else from participating in X. By creating a monopoly on the legal right to (for example) steal and initiate force, governments must prevent (or at least deter) everyone else from engaging in these activities. This is precisely what governments do, they use laws (violence) to deter/ prevent/ punish the rest of society for stealing and initiating force, while simultaneously enforcing an *exemption* for themselves.

    Governments appear to be enforcing moral rules and keeping society ‘civilised’ – and in a limited sense they are, but only because a civilised society which adheres to moral rules allows them to enjoy the *maximum benefits* whenever they violate those moral rules. It eliminates all competition when it comes to immoral behaviour such as stealing and being coercive and violent.

    For example, if government’s allowed other groups to steal a proportion of our wages that would leave less money for them to steal. If everyone used coercion and violence to get what they wanted in life governments would be just another criminal gang in a sea of criminal gangs. When you look at the kind of people in government (people who’s whole luxurious lifestyle is supported by wealth stolen at gunpoint from our wages each week) it is clear that they would NOT be very successful as violent criminals on their own. Most political people are too scared to use public transport in inner city areas. They need our help to become the top gangsters! The parasites and sociopaths in government use morality against us, as a weapon. They exploit moral rules which they know the majority of us accept and want to adhere to.

    The day we extend basic moral rules to include the behaviour of people working in and for governments is the day that, put simply, they will have to stop behaving so damn immorally all the time.

    The idea that moral rules can ever be enforced by creating a group and giving them the monopolistic legal right to VIOLATE those same moral rules is utterly, utterly absurd. Future generations will look back on us and wonder if we were all on drugs.

    • Ian Gardner says:

      All objects are attracted to the Earth? (I assume you did mean Earth and not earth) – it is not wise to use absolutes 🙂
      In the scheme of things man’s laws are puny.
      All the best with what seems like a meaningful blog.

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google+ photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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


Connecting to %s