Showing posts with label Common Law. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Common Law. Show all posts

Thursday, August 1, 2013

Day 341: From Feudalism to Capitalism - With the Aid of The Common Law



By capturing a greater share of the wealth of England, the growing mercantile class also captured a greater influence over the law of England. A common law designed primarily to protect the rights of feudal land ownership was wholly inadequate to the needs of a class whose goal was the accumulation or profit through trade rather than the -the protection of hereditary lands. What was needed were laws that would protect capital and the rights to its accumulation, insure a steady flow of profitable trade goods, and control the problems posed by a growing class of mobile urbanized laborers and artisans, no longer bound to the land, whose livelihoods were dependent upon the vagaries of both national and international trade. By the middle of the fifteenth century the English nobility, and even the crown, was firmly in debt to the mercantile class, and laws that would meet the needs of the powerful mercantile class began to emerge. 
As capital became more central, it increasingly enjoyed state protection in the form of criminal laws designed to punish those who interfered with what had come to be acceptable -forms of capital accumulation.
In sum, during the 300 years preceding the establishment of English colonies in North America, three important innovations were introduced into English law and English legal thought. 
First, law became an important ally of those seeking to maximize profit through capitalist market relations by defining many acts that disrupted the predictability of market relations as crimes, that is, as harms against the state, rather than as civil violations of contracts between individuals
Second, criminal law came to be seen as an appropriate tool for insuring an adequate supply of cheap labor, first for the agrarian economy and later for the developing industrial-mercantile economy of early capitalist England.  
Third, and perhaps most importantly for contemporary criminal law, members of the laboring class who turned to theft, violence, idleness, or other forms of deviance as an adaptation to the brutal conditions of their lives were defined as criminals. In so doing the English State absolved the emerging capitalists who profited greatly from the brutal conditions of working class life of all responsibility for the consequences of these conditions.


______________

And here is our in-your-face-truth, the system has always understood that the conditions of the working class are Brutal, The Law is the Military Arm of the System which is not meant to work for All, but just for some.

Some time ago I wrote a provocative article on Slavery asking  'Why did we abolish Slavery, again?', implying that it was a very efficient system for those that wanted to squeeze the Life out of some so they could make the best lives for themselves.
Someone replied that slavery was ineffective, the slave owners actually had to take care of their slaves, there were obligations in place, like food and shelter and, hear hear, medical care.

Cowperwood returns day after day to a primal scene of the lobster slowly dissecting the quicker but cornered squid, snatching a clawful of flesh whenever the squid drops its guard. Transfixed by this developing drama and its inexorable resolution, Cowperwood is both shocked and exhilarated, transformed into a proto-tycoon: “The incident . . . answered in a rough way that riddle which had been annoying him so much in the past: ‘How is life organized?’ Things lived on each other—that was it.” Theodore Dreiser’s 1912 novel The Financier

What we set up with Capitalism instead was far more effective, we found better ways to 'live on each other', our Slavery became Money and through Money and Debt most were enslaved to a make belief system of worthlessness, of less-ness and we made sure to write down our tradition and customs of Abuse, so we could keep them going, we legitimized them, more, we made them compulsory, abuse is now an organized compulsory trait of the world that we call Common Law.

What if we said Enough?
What if we woke up from our dream of less-ness to become Equal, to stand as Equals to Existence, standing as a point of self responsibility for ourselves and the rest of the world?
Can we even contemplate that?

If we can't is because we are brainwashed, we have been brainwashed into Inequality, everything that exists stands as a remnder that We are Not Equals, The Churches, The Palaces, the Pyramids, anything we praise and look up to is just another link in the chains that keep us bound to our less-ness.

Can we consider every other living being as having the same value that we want for ourselves, the same right to a Dignified Life, the same worth, what if we could?

That would be the moment when we Right our Wrongs, then we'll have the Right to Life back, as we give it to others, as we make sure no child goes hungry, no parent goes worried, no one is homeless or forced to live a life we are not willing to live.

It's either Heaven for All or Hell for All, because we can only live and be what we are willing to give to others, and unless we make sure that All have enough, we'll never have enough, Money will never take away the underlining sense that there is something terribly wrong with this world, and there is, it's US, We have for-gotten instead of for-given, we have for-gotten everything we could, because we believe there is no Law regulating our behavior, we con-fused ourselves with The Law, the One that Some Have Designed and then Wrote down to keep us in a Place that Works for Them, we entertained ourselves with the idea of being 'legit' just because we didn't break the 'code', ironic isn't it?
What if the Code we wrote down and defined as Law is Not Aligned with the Law of the Universe that regulates All Things, what if there was One Law, the one that Jesus told everyone, the One that Jesus lived, to Give As You Would Like to Receive.
Are we excused just because some are not living their for-giveness? Will they be for-gotten then, shouldn't they all be forgotten, shoudn't we all be forgotten if we have not lived for-giving, for-give-ness?

Review Your Judiciary System, there is no Right or Wrong, no Religion, no one more valuable than you, there is Only What is Best for All - The Law is just a testimony to our centuries of Abuse, it will be realigned to the Law of For-Giving and there is a lot of for-giving to do, just look around. It's Time.


Join us, the right to Life starts with a Living Income Guaranteed, because if Life is Not a Right for All, it will never be Right for You.




Enhanced by Zemanta

Wednesday, July 31, 2013

Day 340: The Common Law is Feudalism in Drags








Part of the problems we live in this world is that, of all the systems that surround us, we don't question nor how they came to be in existence nor their fairness, we accept that everything is just the way things are.

Many may have noticed, if they have a certain age, that 'The Law is Not Equal for everyone', and even that we seem to accept, it's 'normal' that rich people get away with murder and the ones that are not rich enough to pay for lawyers, that will deftly find the holes in the Laws, have to either pay up or go to jail.

Our Laws are full of holes, clearly holes that show how the Rich always had it sweeter, it must have been always this way since we accept a Legal system based on precedents, meaning on stuff that has already happened, that has been already ruled over where the Rich proved again and again find a way out, they will always be right in front of the Law and when they should by miss-take result wrong, they will Uplift Themselves Above It.

Have we even ever questioned the Law that governs over us and -in theory- over everybody?
Is the Law the instrument we use 'legally' to enforce Rights that were never Right, and is this why we call them Rights, so everyone in their own mind connects what are now 'enforced feudal traditions' to their own sense of righteousness thus forever preventing ourselves from questioning what we are the Subjects of?

And why is The Law written in a language that requires translators to decode it, how is everyone supposed to know what are Their Rights if they cannot even understand the Constitution of those Rights, where a Constitution exists?

The Law is never questioned by those in power, o-b-v-i-o-u-s-l-y because it protects them and what they now 'legally claim to be their own', the Law is the smokescreen which guarantees the Protection, The Protectorate of the Rich, so that no one can ever question the legitimacy of their 'ownership' in the first place.

1/3 of the world still functions according to the Common Law, we could say it's the 1/3 that counts, the 1/3 with the Money, with the Loot, the 1/3 that wrote the Laws to enforce against Commoners, to protect the Wealthy of the Commonwealth, which were left as Commons without the Wealth, all the other represented organization have their own Laws and Judiciary System, the Military has their own judiciary and Justice system, the OutLaws, they said F**k the Law and  settle their disputes with bullets or bombs, Judges - the other privileged ones are only subject to the Judiciary Court, the Rich are wayyy above the Law, so in fact the Law is just a nice way to call a system, a boundary designed to keep the Poor in their place, making sure they never question why they are poor and why they were not born with the same right to a Dignified Life as anyone else who has the Money to secure one for themselves.

what is The Common Law?


English common law emerged as an integral part of the transformation of England from a loose collection of what were essentially tribal chiefdoms or proto-states to a centrally governed civilization.
Over a 400-year period, from the eighth to the eleventh centuries, this cultural system of settling disputes through local custom became increasingly formalized as the hierarchical organization of Feudalism began to slowly replace the collective and egalitarian organization of the early tribal peoples in England, Wars between various tribal groups brought growing political consolidation and increasing individual ownership or land by powerful lords. 
As the once collectively owned tribal lands came under the private ownership and control of feudal lords, the responsibility of an individual to his kinsmen was replaced by the responsibility of a person to his lord. Where the collective responsibility of kin-groups had once served as the basis of dispute settlement, it now became the responsibility and the prerogative or feudal lords to see that justice was done.
As a means of consolidating power, feudal lords began requiring that dispute-- be submitted to a local "court" for settlement.
By the time of the Norman conquest- in 1066, England was organized into approximately eight large kingdoms, which were at best loosely knit collections of relatively independent feudal landholdings. The basic units of social and political organization were the counties and "hundred." The hundreds were subdivisions of counties, somewhat obscure in their origin but often privately owned and independently governed, it is estimated that at the time of the Conquest approximately half of all the hundreds were owned either by individual lords or by abbeys. 
The large number of hundreds owned by the church indicates the economic and political power of the Catholic Church, a situation that would bring it into direct conflict with a growing secular government in later years.
The hundreds courts were essentially meetings of important hundred residents at which all manner of local problems were discussed, among them the resolution of local disputes.
The right to hold court and to profit from it was the essential hallmark of a feudal ruler. 
Early feudal rulers required that compensatory damages be paid not to the offended party but to the lord of the hundred. The right of a lord to collect the profits resulting from the administration or Justice eventually became an essential force in the development of common law after the conquest.
In addition to the hundreds courts, feudal justice was also administered in the county courts held by the overlords of counties. These overlords could command attendance at their courts by the lords of the hundreds and other representatives. These early county courts prefigured the later bicameral (two-house) legislatures of England house of commons and house of the lords and the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives. It also established the relationship between the lower and higher courts in the U.S. Because the overlords of the counties were more powerful than lords of hundreds, it was possible for county courts to review and even overrule decisions rendered by lords in hundred courts, much the same way as higher courts now can overrule the decisions of the lower courts.
By 1066, England was halfway between tribalism and feudalism, between rule by custom and rule by state law.

The Norman Conquest
By virtue of having conquered England, William the First was able to proclaim that all land and land-based rights, including those of keeping court, were now vested in the king. 
Through this redistribution of land and the consolidation of all rights and relationships associated with land tenure under the crown, local courts eventually came under the administration of Norman rule,
Court keeping rights were still granted concerning land tenure, However, all courts had to he conducted in accordance with the king's interests, particularly his monetary interests. Thus, judicial decision-making was slowly being transformed into the function of an increasingly bureaucratic system of justice.
The king's interest in assuring a proper flow of justice-profits into the royal treasury brought about the institution of the eyre. Developed in the twelfth century as a powerful force for centralizing control over local courts, the eyre provided the structural basis for the development of a common law for England. It consisted of four itinerant judges representing the king who would periodically examine the activities of the county and hundred courts.
One of the focuses of this king's court was to enforce forfeiture laws. This concept stemmed from the feudal doctrine that a man's right to hold property was based upon a relationship of good faith between that man and his lord. The term felony originally meant an offense "so fundamental as to break the relationship between them and to cause the holding to be forfeited to the lord." It was the duty of the judges in Pyre to insure that the king received his portion of forfeited property resulting from any such offenses occurring in the various county and hundred jurisdictions. "Law and order on the national scale were first expressed in terms of revenue."
It was the decisions made by the judges in eyre concerning the common pleas brought before them that produced the body of legal precedent that became known as common law, that is, the rules of dispute settlement common to all England. As the itinerant judges in eyre, settled common-plea cases they established precedents to be followed in similar cases. Because common law was built on a case-by-case basis the terms "common law" and "case law" are sometimes used synonymously.
The development of English common law was not merely the institutionalization of traditional English customs. The rules of law established by the king's courts were often unprecedented. Thus, the common law of England was "the by-product of an administrative triumph: the way in which the government of England came to be centralized and specialized during the centuries after the conquest."
By seeking to eliminate variations in settlements arising from differences in local custom, '-the establishment of common law gave rise to a concept of justice the emphasized the uniform application of standardized laws and procedures. This concept was embodied in the doctrine of stare decisis that emphasized the importance of legal precedents established in previously settled cases.
Common law was primarily oriented not toward protecting individuals from ordinary threats to person and property -but toward maintaining social peace by regulating the economic arrangements characteristic of feudal land tenure and consolidating royal power under this system.


So, in summary, The Common Law is a set of customs and traditions who ended up in writing, not the tradition and customs of the People but of Kings, Lords, the Catholic Church, those that had power over the rest of Humanity, it's a set of rules based on precedents that dates all the way back to Feudalism and then was moved into Capitalism, which is Feudalism using Money vs Land, we have been screwed for over 1000 years - and it's all there, within the precedents, telling us how many times we have been screwed out of what belonged to All -in writing. The Common law is the evidence, the precedents will always prove that those with Power were Right, are Right, have Rights, while we forfeited all our rights for a Protectorate, because Fear drives us and is used to drive us and we would rather bend and break than stand up and ask that this World Be Rewritten to Cater to All and Not Just to Some.

Common Law - aka the offspring of Feudalism, you can believe in it or Begin Questioning Everything About This World because Something Is Not Right, starting with 1/3 of the world living below poverty line, with people dieing of famine, lack of sanitation, lack of access to proper medical care, education, a shelter, so what Is Lawful may just turn out to be Awful, yeah right, we have been had.

It's ime to question every single point in existence, because if the Lawful Law is just Awful, what about the rest?

Wake Up, no one has to live this way, consider Giving To All What You Would Like for Yourself, then we won't need to Die to go to Heaven. Heaven for All is Possible through a Change of Mind, we begin by supporting a Dignified Life for All, how about that?


Related articles
Enhanced by Zemanta

Monday, July 29, 2013

Day 339: Why the CommonWealth was Never the Common Good






To understand the power of the Empire, we have to look back into History and how acts of vile submission and violence ended up glorified into an Imperial Stance of Grandness vs an Obvious acknowledgement of Mere Abuse.

The first time the word CommonWealth was used was by Lord Rosbery during one of his trips to Australia

Does this fact of your being a nation … imply separation from the Empire? God forbid! There is no need for any nation, however great, leaving the Empire, because the Empire is a Commonwealth of Nations.

 Here is a brief portrait of Lord Rosbery, by one of his peers:

" He turned on his heel and walked away." The phrase sums up Lord Rosebery. He is always turning on his heel and walking away now from his friends, now from himself. He is as inconstant as the moon, unstable as water, whimsical as a butterfly. His path leads from nowhere to nowhere. He is like a man lost in the mist on the mountains and having no compass with which to guide his steps. He has all the gifts except the gift of being, able to apply them. Macaulay said of Byron that all the good fairies brought their offerings at his christening; but the one malignant fairy, uninvited, came and turned the gifts of the others to bitterness. And so with Lord Rosebery. He was endowed with all the elements of greatness; but the elements are not enough. They must be compounded into unity by that in-definable something, constant and purposeful, which we call character, and it is the quality of character which Lord Rosebery lacks. And lacking that he lacks all. His gifts are idle ornaments; his life a drama without a sequence and without a theme. 

Lord Rosbery had the gift of words and could see how to move both the Parliament and the masses as much as he was moved, from mood to mood, never stable, never seeking the Common Good of Mankind but just ways to shine in his Life and his career. He was a model of Self Interest and extended his Self Interest outside of himself, wanting to own the World but lacking the Character to make it Work for All.

So, he designed a word that was meant to Unite, not All, just those that were considering departing the Empire and thus The CommonWealth was the Empire's bribery in words, in empty promises, in the assurance that they would all benefit from their Protection aka Colonization and they needn't move away just because they had obtained the recognition of Nation-ship, the Empire never meant to grant Real Sovereignty to anyone, there was only one Sovereign, one alone to Reign Over and that was to be The Queen or The King of England, and so the Empire secured their place in the Minds of those who should have stood up for All, by promising a share of the Wealth for them, the CommonWealth.

And with accepting this promise of Lala Land the people of their protectorates/colonies accepted their Fate, an Ill Fate, that would extend into the decades and become ever more deceiving, transforming in-your-face Colonization of Land and people into more subtle forms of Ownership of People's Minds through Propaganda and a Debt System, where we ended up All Colonized to a Social and (Monetary) System designed to recreate the power of the Empire by means of Money vs the Means of Force, because it was cheaper, more profitable and it required way less effort, while meeting much less resistance, as we willingly made Money our God and the Sovereign of England, printed on many Currencies, the Power that runs our Minds -and the USA, their prolific offspring, the power that rules over EveryBody.

Welcome to the Commonwealth that was promised and never delivered, there was never in History an intent to design a world for the Common Good, We are the Common Goods ruled by the Common Law, a Law handed down to us by those that had gained their power illegally, immorally, through unspeakable acts of abuse, and so the Commoners, ended up with nothing, no rank, no title, no money, no rights, no choices, just the Hope, the great Bestseller of our Century, the Hope that they may one day eventually share in the CommonWealth and with that Hope in their hearts they willed themselves to be Subjects, waiting for a change that would never come, as the Plan was never Change, but the servitude of Men by the abdication of their Minds and themselves until they would sell out, and souled out we are -and screwed too, now a bunch of people own most of the resources of the World - and we basically have to suck it up.

The CommonWealth will come when All Lives will have the Same Value, as Life, until then there will be Injustice and Inequality, and the Lords will continue to lord it over us, because we said yes to the promise of the CommonWealth and the Hope that was given (it's Free!) vs what should have been given to All, A Dignified Life and a share in what this planet gives for everyone. Wake up!


Tomorrow a look at the Common Law that still rules over us to see how the Common Law is in fact a Cult, it's the tradition to lord it over others and how it became Dogma, command-ments, so that we may never question again, why and how we ended up with nothing while some enjoy the Lives of King on the shoulders of the rest of Humanity.


Stand for a World that works for All, Free Yourself, it's Time.



Enhanced by Zemanta