Utopian Realism

There is law, as in legality, law as in scientific law and there is lore, as in moral lore.

The difference between law (legality) and lore is simple.

Law (legality) is a man made, subjective construct that is subject to change and only applicable to some.

Lore is objective to existence, will never change and is equally applicable to everyone.

To understand law, you need to go to university for many years.

To live by lore, you only need basic common sense (although one still needs to learn common sense).

Law is subjective, changes everywhere you go and depends on your status.

Lore is objective, remains the same everywhere and is the same for everyone.

One is extremely complex, confusing and disconnected from reality, one is extremely simple, obvious and connected to reality.

Lore is knowledge, customs and guidelines that the wise have discovered is best to live peacefully and harmoniously amongst fellows.

Law (legality) is not.

Scientific laws are the facts of reality, such as the law of gravity or electro statics, electro magnetism, cause and effect and any other physical law which governs the function of existence which is inherent to reality and is unalterable.

What the legal system has tried to do (and has unfortunately successfully done) is trick people into believing that their invented constructs of subjective rules (legality) are indeed actual "law" and have all the same unavoidable weight and implications of actual scientific laws.

This is a subliminal, hypnotic deception.

To misname a concept deliberately (via the same sound and spelling / visual-auditory symbol) in an attempt to steal the vested authority of that contextually accurate concept, which in this case is directly scientific law and indirectly moral lore (via the same sound but different spelling), is a dishonest and dishonourable act.

Scientific law is intrinsic, natural to reality, without mans intervention or assistance.

Lore is objective, conceptually discovered by man through a proper method of reason, directly tied to reality.

Legal "law" is subjective and often arbitrary, meaning without principle, basis, valid justification and subject to change upon the emotional whims of whoever is enforcing the law and the status and wealth of whoever is on the receiving end of it.

Scientific law and lore is always applicable, whether you like it or not.

Legality can only honourably operate via direct consent and agreement to be bound by contractual terms and conditions.

Such as when a man agrees to become an employee working for a company signs a contract consenting to the terms and conditions. This is legality, contract law, which can have merit, if done ethically.

The government is very deceptive and tricks people into consenting to their contract legal law by having them identify and act as a legal fiction (all capital lettered name).

When one registers their car, uses a drivers license or contracts with a government agency, they are in effect consenting to be bound according to the rules/law/terms and conditions of the politicians (company managers) of that particular government who write the laws/contract/policy.

This is how the courts, police (policy enforcers) and government say that they have the right to forcefully make you obey their system as they believe you willingly consented by contracting with them.

Legality can be moral, such as when used by a company who respects people and which only has limited jurisdiction via consent and which only utilises ethical contracts.

Governments are basically a company open to the ‘public’ and their jurisdiction, their legality (law), is always immoral as it violates objective morality. They have gained jurisdiction via a dishonest and unethical practice, primarily being deception, by withholding full disclosure and by being combative against ones desire to become more informed of their policy's.

If you signed an ethical contract to work for a company or another individual, it is the duty of the one who wrote the contract to explain any terms which you don't understand and to not be belligerent.

Police, court employees, government agency staff or any other government employees are either incompetent or belligerent (or both) when questioned about the nature of their polices/law/legality/contracts.

This is a violation of objective morality, as one has the right to have jurisdiction over another via direct explicit consent, but one does not have the right to have jurisdiction via implicit and dishonest means, especially against ones explicit refusal to be subordinate or revocation of any fish hook (deceptive) contracts.

There are times when the government system switches from the application of law (legality) to lore (objective morality), such as in the cases where there has been an actual crime committed. Such as rape, murder, assault etc.

They must do this to uphold at least a faint image of being a competent practice of justice.

Although, their methods of justice are bastardised, flawed and barbaric, being predominantly based upon punishment, fear, revenge and torture.

Legality is subjective because it has been written to favour and primarily benefit whoever writes the law/legality/contracts.

In the case of company contracts/legality, this is only reasonable as the employer would like the employee to turn up on time and follow a specified protocol while at work to achieve the company's goals.

The government does not disclose the full terms and conditions of their contract. No one, absolutely no human being, man, woman or child has ever accepted the terms and conditions explicitly because no one has ever explained the full terms. Implicit acceptance of a contract is an invalid method of acquiring consent and immediately nullifies and voids the unethical contract.

Any contract which has been formed without the 7 points of an ethical contract as a bare minimum is instantly vitiated, spoiled, ineffective and corrupted.

The way their system implicitly gathers consent is via the deception that one must have a drivers license, pay registration, pay taxes etc. or they will face physical attack by the policy enforcers.

This is a fear based tactic combined with deception. "You must obey and comply to our system otherwise we will use violence and torture (imprisonment) against you."

This explicitly exposes their system as corrupt and illegitimate as a government, organisation, company or individual practice, as no man, woman, god or other entity has the right to violate morality and the lore, no matter how benevolent their schemes may appear on the surface or however implicit the garnered consent of people may be.

Scientific law does not require your consent to operate, nor does objective morality, but subjective legality DOES.

it is your right and duty to reject and openly declare your condemnation of immoral contracts and practices.

To summarise, law is actually intrinsic scientific/physical law.

Law, as mistaken, is just subjective legality.

Lore is objective morality.

You have the ethical high ground, now shoot for the metaphorical head of immorality.