"Is a Law Still a Law if No One is Around to Enforce it?"

[Jonathan Barlow Gee]

INTRODUCTION

I am confident that everyone reading this alive contemporary to when I am writing it (2014), everyone in "my" generation, has been asked, and asked themselves, the very irrelevant rhetorical question: "if a tree falls in the woods and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?" Even though this question is indicative of no school of philosophy, means little in itself and proves even less if one tries to answer it, because it is a shared substitute for any more complex philosophical learning, it is a proxy form of "folkish" wisdom, shared collectively and forming the glue that bonds humans together into communities.

If I were a Fascist, I would transition from discussing the "glue that bonds us together into communities" into discussing the "strength and power of this necessary component stemming directly from the force of Law, that is, directly, the threat of state-violence imposed by a standing army when it is stationed on its own nation's soil." But I am NOT a "fascist," so I will NOT. Instead, I will compare the content of this folkish saying about a "tree falling in the woods" to the NATURE and SUBSTANCE of this idea humanity, communally, agrees upon as "Law."

"IS A LAW STILL A LAW IF THERE IS NO ONE AROUND TO ENFORCE IT?"

While "if a tree falls in the woods" is an entirely pointless line of reasoning to pursue, "is a law still a law" SHOULD be, on the other hand, a subject everybody SHOULD study from an objective perspective at some point in their life. Everyone I know alive NOW HAS studied it, and all of us have formed our own opinions on the topic which, although mostly in agreement on the nature of the problem it poses, are each unique about how to approach handling and dealing with this problem, in order to cause it to, as most would put it, "fuck off."

There is another, similar question that may be posed from the opposite side of the debate: "IS A RIGHT STILL A RIGHT IF THERE IS NO ONE AROUND TO PROTECT IT?" However, for the point of discussing the veracity as an axiom of "is a law still a law," there is no need to bring this point of view on the issue into the arena of our focus yet. In a moment, I will return to discuss this counter-point, but to analyze "is a law still a law" we do NOT need to be aware yet of the complex nature constructing this counter-argument. To examine "is a law still a law" objectively, we must first examine the nature of the complex question at hand, and then we may weigh it against that of its counter-argument's point of view.

So, "IS A LAW STILL A LAW IF THERE IS NO ONE AROUND TO ENFORCE IT?" This question is a very practical one, involving the act of biological survival in the material reality. It CAN be abstracted into a complex philosophically idealized point of view and argued out from there as well, however. Aside from the PERSONAL CHOICES of myself or my friends and family, I would like to attempt now to present some of these points of view on the philosophical side of this issue that would address this question. It is my desire NOT to editorialize in this regard, although I might lapse into such, but to remain objective and ultimately equitable in my presentation of ALL points of view.

PHILOSOPHICAL IMPLICATIONS

We are all Free. We are "born free," although helpless to protect ourselves and therefore dependent for food and shelter on others, presumably our parents, since they are responsible for having conceived us. Herein lies the FIRST true Trap that causes us to begin to DOUBT our perpetual condition of Freedom. We, as infants, begin to identify ourselves as being the product and responsibility of our parents, and so begin to recognize our own ability for self-definition first by emulating the contents of their own. The affectations of our parents and their reactions to one another regarding the topic of our biological body form the first and longest lasting psychological imprint on our "ego" or concept of self-definition: the externalizing expression of our internal awareness of our own natural existence. We therefore realize first that we DO exist, and then, as we mature, we begin to "take control" of our own survival and self-expressions. As it is said of the phases of childhood development, "you must learn to crawl before you can learn to walk." Because of all these factors, we may not realize we are "free" even during these earliest stages of our youth. We may FEEL dependent on our parents economically and legally. But in TRUTH, the fate of our biological bodies as infants is irrelevant to whether or not we are technically a "free and independent, functional biological bodily" unit. Likewise, there are NOT "degrees of Freedom" whereby a child is LESS free than an adult, a tax-payer LESS free than a police officer, nor a slave LESS free than a citizen. We are ALL FREE, ALL THE TIME. Each of us is "Always Free" in so far as each of us is, from birth, an independently functional biological body. This body lives until it cannot and then it dies. This is the definition of "Freedom": the Right to Attempt Survival Until One Wants To Die Or Can No Longer Live. But this Right to Attempt to Survive CANNOT guarantee that one WILL survive; ultimately, one WILL NOT Survive, regardless of whether one realizes they are "Free" (in this abstract sense) to at LEAST "Attempt" to survive on their own. A baby, left in the wilderness outside ancient Sparta, is EQUALLY "Free" to EITHER Survive OR Die. By Spartan custom, it is left on its own to fend for itself and to adapt to its surrounding environment in the wild. If it survives, it is retrieved and declared a "free citizen" of Sparta. If it does not, it is considered "unworthy" of this "honor." The child left to its own devices, to fend for itself in the wilderness, learns immediately the lesson about Freedom of which MOST modern "civilized" humans alive today remain ignorant: FREEDOM ISN'T FREE. Being Free is a Difficult Responsibility. To EARN the RIGHT to Freedom, you MUST Struggle Against All Odds to Survive, because the moment you STOP struggling against all odds to survive, you will die.

FREEDOM, although an example of one, and RIGHTS, although both are abstract ideals, are VERY different concepts altogether. FREEDOM is a Burden, whereas Rights set you Free. It is said that "rights are responsibilities," because "protecting rights" is ALSO an example of a "RIGHT" itself. If we wish to "Live Free" and to "Live on One's Feet rather than Die on One's Knees," and to avoid enslavement, then we must learn to struggle against not only environmental elements themselves, the wind, the rain, the asp of the desert, the tiger of the jungle, etc. We must also gird ourselves in preparation to struggle AGAINST OUR FELLOW HUMAN BEINGS. This is to be expected NOT because it is desirable, NOR necessary, but because it is ALLOWED. Freedom ALLOWS people to attempt to steal their own, additional Rights to Freedom (the Right to Attempt to Survive Alone) & the "Pursuit of Pleasure" (the Right to Capitalize on and Exploit Weaknesses in order to impose their own Personal Preferences for Change) FROM other people, regardless of their similarities or differences. A "SLAVE" IS, Ultimately, ALWAYS FREE, whether they admit this to themselves or not. Their own choices got them into their situation, and their own choice to leave that situation can get them out of it at any time. Anyone, At ANY Time, Has the Right to Just Walk Away. Even if it means you will be shot in the back, you still have the Right to Leave.

So, if FREEDOM is a RIGHT, and RIGHTS comprise the LAW, and the LAW is enforced in order to "Protect Our Rights," then one of these RIGHTS is the Right to FREEDOM. However, to Enforce the Law of One Person's RIGHT to the "Pursuit of Pleasure" means to Enforce Their "RIGHT" to Enslave Another Person, and thus to ALLOW one person to (justly or wrongly) deprive someone else, more or less exactly equal to themselves, of their own Rights to Freedom and the Pursuit of Pleasure; this (even only potential) action ultimately serves ONLY to deprive BOTH People of their Right to ABSOLUTE Freedom from ANY interference by the list of ideals comprising the State's existence itself. Once upon a time (and in some places even now), Slavery WAS Legal. Runaway Slaves were Returned to their Owners or Killed BY THE LETTER OF THE LAW. This does NOT make Slavery Morally nor Ethically Right; and this casts dangerous foreshadowing on the subject of whether or not the LAW, being the list of ALL RIGHTS, itself MAY NOT BE Morally or even Ethically "Right."

If the LAW is simply a LIST of ALL RIGHTS, it is one that presumes the RIGHT to ABSOLUTE FREEDOM as Primary to itself, and then attempts to Narrow this ABSOLUTE FREEDOM down by applying the concept that "Rights Are Responsibilities" to use the LAW as a LIST OF ALL RIGHTS as a list ONLY of "negative commandments," so-called "thou shalt not" statements, implying we all have ABSOLUTE FREEDOM as a condition of our own and of all Nature, but that, by LAW, we do NOT have the "Right" to Knowingly Commit Crime. Ultimately, EVERY action CAN be considered a "CRIME," because EVERYTHING we DO as part of our natural struggle to survive in this existence will, ultimately, impinge upon the Rights and Freedom of Other People. Yet, the definition of a "CRIME" is: ANY ACTION DONE TO KNOWINGLY LIMIT THE RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF ANOTHER. Never mind that Slavery, under the Right to "Pursuit of Pleasure," is ALLOWED not only by Naturally ABSOLUTE Freedom but occasionally also by LAW itself, we are TOLD that EVERYTHING we DO that IMPINGES adversely upon ANYONE ELSE is, technically, a "Crime." There are, thus, more LAWS dictating what CRIMES are than there are LAWS listing our RIGHTS.

Thus, we are ALL Born Free, but not necessarily are we AWARE of this Fact. Many remain "mental slaves," never aware of their True Condition as Bodily Free Human Beings, their entire lives. If we do not learn of the existence of the concept of "Freedom," let alone of our Responsibility to Protect Our RIGHT to it, then we remain indifferent to it, and thus are comparatively considered a "mental slave" to one whom HAS pondered this concept, and whom has come to their own personal conclusions about where they stand relative to its topic. EVEN those who ARE UNAWARE of it ARE Free; no less the slave than a feral individual isolated from all human contact in the wilderness. Therefore, whether we KNOW of the concept or NOT, whether we agree to accept this as fact or NOT, We are ALL Free, Always, regardless.

FREEDOM is a NATURAL TRAIT of our conditions in this existence, so it is considered a RIGHT to be FREE because it is considered IMPOSSIBLE to NOT be Free; if one is left alone, to one's own devices, One CANNOT Enslave Oneself. The very definition OF "Freedom" AS a "Right" is: to be left alone, to be left to one's own devices, and allowed to struggle for their own survival in isolation from ANYONE ELSE'S interference OR assistance. EVERYONE, we are TOLD, has the RIGHT to FREEDOM, defined as such. And YET, we are ALSO being told, much more recently from a historical perspective, that EVERY ACTION IS A CRIME.

RIGHTS, if defined as: inescapable, NATURAL TRAITS of our conditions in this existence, are MEANT to distinctly contrast with WRONGS or INJUSTICES, and when we witness someone doing something considered Morally and Ethically WRONG we are SUPPOSED to know INSTINCTIVELY that what they are doing is NOT "Right" BECAUSE what they are doing impinges on the "Rights" of another person. If a person commits a CRIME, it is considered so ONLY because it is an act that is a violation of the Rights of someone else. What IS "Right" and "Good" has long been dwelt upon by ALL human sages throughout time, and yet the concept of codifying the LAW as a List of ALL Rights has proven to be only a relatively more recent idea in the minds of western civilization's diverse multitude of citizens. Therefore, it was considered "Good" and "Just" that we should LIVE in the first place for many centuries in Europe before it was considered a "Natural Right" to Live Free by the Constitutionalists of the earliest American colonies. The concept of ACCEPTING that "FREEDOM" IS, itself, a "Natural Trait" has proven to be difficult in the minds of many later generations of feudal vassals and serfs, even into modern times. However, whether or not "RIGHTS" are defined as "inescapable, NATURAL TRAITS of our conditions in this existence," FREEDOM Exists. Whether it is a "Right" or not, FREEDOM is the predominant condition of our existence naturally, above and before ANY and ALL other ideals about "Rights."

Having "Rights" is inescapable because one of these "Rights" is our "Right to FREEDOM," and one CANNOT escape being Free; it is a constant condition of our existence that each of us is an independently functioning biological bodily unit. Therefore, one CANNOT Escape ANY other "Right" (if they are defined, likewise, as NATURAL TRAITS of our conditions in this existence), and this aspect is pivotal in the definition of "Rights" also, because it implies that "Rights" are "Responsibilities;" just as we are FREE only insofar as we are INDEPENDENT to Struggle for our own Survival, likewise, we have "Rights" only insofar as we PROTECT and DEFEND them against other people. If we are NOT left alone, to our own devices, we are considered "LESS Free," and likewise if we choose NOT to exercise our "Right" to Struggle for Survival, we are considered "LESS Fit," less worthy or less deserving of it. However, if one IS alive, one DESERVES the CHANCE to ATTEMPT TO SURVIVE; and likewise, there are NOT "degrees" of Freedom, whereby ANYONE is "LESS Free" than anyone else.

Does one have the RIGHT to PROTECT their RIGHTS? If any action is considered a CRIME if it imposes, impinges, crosses the border or threatens the RIGHTS of another person, then how can the RIGHT to the "Pursuit of Pleasure" be PROTECTED if this includes the RIGHT to Enslave Others? It creates a paradoxical tautology, whereby to PROTECT the "Right" to the "Pursuit of Pleasure," it becomes LAW that One Person is FREE and ALLOWED to Enslave Another, and thus it becomes, at least for SOME (if not, arguably, ALL), a CRIME to be FREE. However, what is "Right" CANNOT be the same as what is "Wrong," and so what is a "Right" CANNOT also be a "Crime." Nevertheless, when one considers the LAW as a List of ALL Rights, and paramount to ALL other Rights is that to our inescapable condition of Naturally ABSOLUTE FREEDOM, then FREEDOM CANNOT be a CRIME, because it Already IS a "RIGHT."

It seems OBVIOUS one SHOULD simply OMIT the "Pursuit of Pleasure" from among the List of ALL Rights in the LAW. However, consider the ramifications of such an action. If the "Pursuit of Pleasure," defined as: a natural outgrowth of our self-expression as individuals, is NOT considered a "RIGHT," even though it IS a sub-section ALLOWED by "Freedom," then an aspect of "Freedom," which is considered the paramount "Right," becomes labeled NOT a "Right," but a CRIME. The "Pursuit of Pleasure," it has been argued for the past 2 centuries, is at the foundation of one's personal "Right to FREEDOM;" if one CANNOT pursue one's own pleasure, one CANNOT be considered FREE. If we are FREE, left alone and to our own devices, we are ALLOWED our own, unique self-expressions in the "Pursuit of Pleasure." These, being our inescapable RIGHT, CANNOT be considered also a CRIME, it is reasonably argued. However, when the "Pursuit of Pleasure" crosses the line and BECOMES a CRIME, such as when, in the "Pursuit of Pleasure," one human is allowed to enslave or kill another, THEN it calls into serious Question the Existence or Nonexistence of the whole concept of "Rights." If one person has the RIGHT to enslave or kill another, simply because FREEDOM is a "Right," and one is FREE to enslave or kill another, then Crimes BECOME Laws. They don't CEASE being Morally and Ethically WRONG actions simply by not calling them CRIMES anymore, but calling them the LAW now; however, this subtle distinction is enough of a loop-hole for the majority of humanity to shed their legal conventions of morality and ethics and claim their "Right" to commit CRIMES because "FREEDOM is a Right," and because FREEDOM ALLOWS CRIMES to occur.

In TRUTH, FREEDOM exists independently of RIGHTS. FREEDOM exists, therefore, whether or not "RIGHTS" exist. The concept of ALL people being FREE Always IS "factual," whether or not it is morally and ethically "right" and "just" or "wrong" and "harmful." Therefore, as an IDEA, FREEDOM "exists" independently of the issue of the existence or non-existence of "Rights." If NO SUCH THING as a "Right" EXISTS, such as if FREEDOM were the ONLY NATURAL TRAIT in our conditions of existence, then the collection of LAW as a List of ALL "Rights" is IRRELEVANT. If something is LEGAL or NOT does NOT correspond to whether or not it is a moral or ethical action. Therefore, what is LAW, that List of ALL Rights and that yet MUCH longer list of all CRIMES, if NOT entirely irrelevant relative to our Naturally ABSOLUTE FREEDOM?

PHILOSOPHICAL CONCLUSION

Again, we return to the original Question posed: IS A LAW STILL A LAW IF THERE IS NO ONE AROUND TO ENFORCE IT? In the realm of human activity, so-called sociology, we can now conclude that NO, if no one is around to enforce the law, then there IS NO LAW. In the same manner as an individual, in a condition of Naturally ABSOLUTE FREEDOM, CANNOT enslave oneself, if one is ABSOLUTELY FREE, left alone and to one's own devices, utterly allowed, without interference nor assistance, their unique self-expressive "Pursuit of Pleasure," then THERE IS NO LAW, because one cannot ENFORCE a LAW against oneself; without preconditioned KNOWING moral and ethical "right" from "wrong," NO Action CAN be seen as a CRIME. In other words, "When Nothing is True, Everything is Permitted," even though, "When Zeus is Toppled, Chaos Wins and Whirlwind Reigns."

Of course, in the realm of material reality, so-called physics, the concept of a LAW is quite detached from the same word's definition in the field of human activity, so-called sociology. Even though, in the realm of human activity, a LAW is no more substantially REAL than any other merely philosophical IDEA, in the realm of physics and the field of material reality itself, the definition of a LAW is NOT so easily malleable, bent and broken. A LAW of physics, such as entropy or gravity, CANNOT be so easily disregarded as the legal conventions and folkish traditions of civilized humanity's behavioral rules. In human society, if a person is hungry, and there is only a thin pane of glass separating themselves from bread and ending their starvation, they will ultimately break the glass and take the bread they need to survive. Even though such an action MAY be considered morally and ethically WRONG and Legally seen as a CRIME, such an action is NECESSARY, and therefore ultimately CANNOT be proven to be EITHER. Thus, the Physical Law of Necessity trumps the legal code of civilized humanity. Because the LAWS of physics supersede the "LAWS" of civilized humanity, and are seen as LESS easily breakable than the conventions of humanity's morality and ethics, not only are physical LAWS Facts of material reality while human "LAWS" are literally a Lie, but occasionally human LAWS are attempted to be affiliated with Natural LAWS, such as those of math or physics, even though they are NOT alike these Other LAWS in ANY way AT ALL. ANY attempts to affiliate human "LAWS" with Natural LAWS is specious and foolish. Human "LAWS" are without USE, VALUE, OBJECTIVE MATERIAL REALITY and are IMMORAL and UNETHICAL ideals; they have NO Meaning. Physical LAWS are exactly the opposite of these conditions of existence. Physical LAWS and sociological LAWS should NOT be confused.

Hence we find the question "IS A LAW STILL A LAW IF THERE IS NO ONE AROUND TO ENFORCE IT?" is MUCH alike that of "if a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it does it make a sound?" because there are different answers to the question in the realms of either human activity OR material physics. If a tree falls in the forest, and no one is around to hear it, YES it makes a sound, in the physical sense of the word, but NO, this sound is NOT received by anyone if no one is around to hear it. Likewise, YES a law is still a law even if no one is around to enforce it, IF the "Law" is a LAW of physics, but NOT if the "Law" is one of humanity's civilization.

Peace.

- Jon Gee

Tallahassee Florida USA

June 28, 2014.