I cannot count the times I have heard this question: "Do these people think they're above the law?”
In most instances, they are in fact above the law. However, there are two things to consider when I say this:
- They are not above ALL law.. "natural/common law" is universal..
- You are also above the law, we all are.
Recently I read a meme about the laws the "Sovereign" queen has above her subjects, that refers to the term "sovereign immunity”.
(From Wikipedia) “Sovereign immunity, or crown immunity, is a legal doctrine by which the sovereign or state cannot commit a legal wrong and is immune from civil suit or criminal prosecution. This principle is commonly expressed by the popular legal maxim "rex non potest peccare," meaning "the king can do no wrong.”
“In constitutional monarchies the sovereign is the historical origin of the authority which creates the courts. Thus the courts had no power to compel the sovereign to be bound by the courts, as they were created by the sovereign for the protection of his or her subjects.”~end
To suggest that one person is above the law is a misnomer, because in fact, we are all above the law, or more aptly stated the law is below mankind. The law only exists due to human ingenuity, and is a creation of mankind, therefore law is the servant of man, rather than the master. However due to the sabotage of language, and the way language is used to influence our thinking process, it is a term used inappropriately to often.
We are often outraged when we see people in power escaping punishment for both violent and non-violent offenses by claiming diplomatic immunity, sovereign immunity, corporate immunity, or by purchasing the best lawyers money can buy. How are they able to do this? The answers come with even more questions, beginning with what is the definition of law, the use of force, and its relationship to law and sovereignty?
What is sovereignty? Sovereignty is defined as "supreme power or authority." In this particular case, the State or Monarchy. However, in my estimation everyone is sovereign. According to the human right of self determination, we are sovereign in our own lives.
We are all in charge of our own lives, and no one has a higher claim or right to our lives more than ourselves. By nature we have the right of self determination, the right to determine what we will do with our life and our properties, above any other person or group.
No person or group of people can claim the right to our life through any means of force or threat of violence against us. No one can justifiably force us fight or die for them, their beliefs, ideas or causes.
For example: Being told "I have to fight the volcano, and possibly die so we can have good crops" is the same as telling me "I have to fight and potentially die for your country so we can have democracy." Which is why I believe conscription is so deplorable.
A more subtle form, and more dangerous to society is the so called "social contract”. You were born here, or you chose to be here, so now you have an "obligation" to participate.
Rape is a violation regardless if I was born in a land where rape is legal. If the participants have a majority vote to violate me, or if my consent is by mere presence, simply being there. It is immoral, unjust, and no less a violation of the human being, and the right of self determination based on voluntary consent.
How is it for instance the Queen of England cannot be tried in a court of the UK? Think for a moment on this statement: "In constitutional monarchies the sovereign is the historical origin of the authority which creates the courts. Thus the courts had no power to compel the sovereign to be bound by the courts, as they were created by the sovereign for the protection of his or her subjects." In other words, if you make the law, you are not bound to it. As ridiculous as this sounds it has merit in the principle that the law is a product of man, and man is the master of his creation.
(Understood that in this context, I refer to all law outside common or natural law.)
As the sovereign of a country the sovereign is "officially recognized" by the state and therefore granted certain "privileges" from it. This is also a misnomer as human rights are not privileges and are not granted by the state. They are however in antipode removed by the state, the majority, and the belief in authority outside oneself. However, the privileges to which I refer are those concerning the aggressive use of force, coercion, extortion, theft, and any other non-criminal offense where force may be used against us to gain compliance for the purpose of extracting from us some form of value, whether it be labor, time, property, or any combination thereof.
The paradox of Sovereignty, recognized by the state is "official sovereignty" vs. "personal sovereignty." How can the state recognize one claim of sovereignty and not another? What is the criteria for recognition? Blood? Genealogical bloodlines, or the blood of those murdered in psychopathic conquest?
Sovereignty is a claim that we are a human being, and no use of aggressive force against us is justified. There is nothing that justifies anything that compels us to follow any arbitrary dictates through the use of aggression or force.
It infuriates me that anyone thinks they are above anyone else, and stupefies me that anyone accepts the premise that anyone is above me. For both infer that we are not the master of our own destiny. If I am above anyone else, then logically someone can be above me, and if I agree someone is above me, then I automatically accept they have more natural human rights or a higher right to my life than I do. Nonsense.
Consider Frédéric Bastiat's statement in his essay The Law: "The law is the organization of the natural right of lawful defense." Which can be defined as "The righteous use of force."
All other use of aggressive force are by nature an abuse of the use of force, and thus an abuse of LAW, for all aggressive uses of force are akin to enslavement, extortion or theft, which he later describes as “plunder” or “lawful plunder”.
When a man or group of men use the law to remove the rights of another man or group of men, they are using force to remove those rights. Slavery used "Lawful" force to remove the rights of those who were enslaved. Therefore it is obvious, and apparent that law is not inherently moral or just, which is why he also wrote:
"When law and morality contradict each other, the citizen has the cruel alternative of either losing his moral sense or losing his respect for the law."
(from: The Law) "What is Law? Each of us has a natural right from God to defend his person, his liberty, and his property. These are the three basic requirements of life, and the preservation of any one of them is completely dependent upon the preservation of the other two. For what are our faculties but the extension of our individuality? And what is property but an extension of our faculties? If every person has the right to defend even by force his person, his liberty, and his property, then it follows that a group of men have the right to organize and support a common force to protect these rights constantly. Thus the principle of collective right its reason for existing, its lawfulness is based on individual right. And the common force that protects this collective right cannot logically have any other purpose or any other mission than that for which it acts as a substitute. Thus, since an individual cannot lawfully use force against the person, liberty, or property of another individual, then the common force for the same reason cannot lawfully be used to destroy the person, liberty, or property of individuals or groups.
Such a perversion of force would be, in both cases, contrary to our premise. Force has been given to us to defend our own individual rights. Who will dare to say that force has been given to us to destroy the equal rights of our brothers? Since no individual acting separately can lawfully use force to destroy the rights of others, does it not logically follow that the same principle also applies to the common force that is nothing more than the organized combination of the individual forces?
If this is true, then nothing can be more evident than this: The law is the organization of the natural right of lawful defense. It is the substitution of a common force for individual forces. And this common force is to do only what the individual forces have a natural and lawful right to do: to protect persons, liberties, and properties; to maintain the right of each, and to cause justice to reign over us all." Bastiat
Think about that for a minute or longer.
By understanding what the nature of law is, (the organization of the natural right of lawful defense), and that any aggressive use of force is a perversion of the law, we can then come to understand the law as our servant rather than our master. We are not meant to live under the perversion of law as property devoid of freedom. We are not morally bound to it, to uphold, or follow it as it is morally repugnant.
We are destined to be the sovereigns of ourselves, the masters of our own destinies and any infringement of our natural right to self determination through the use of aggressive force to compel non-voluntary compliance to anything outside natural or common law is an unjustified abuse of both force and law.
Kris Harrison
The Progressive Anarchist