The Daily Paul has been archived. Please see the continuation of the Daily Paul at Popular

Thank you for a great ride, and for 8 years of support!
31 votes

The one law inherent to society

Do not harm another.

This one law naturally restricts (governs) the behavior of the individual.
All behavior that does not harm another is naturally permitted.
All behavior that harms another is naturally forbidden.

The only rightful use of non-consensual violence is to defend against those individuals, groups, institutions, and governments who violate this one law.

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

a thousand times yes bring it

a thousand times yes

bring it all back to the basics, the rooted simplistic powerful basics

Thanks Gomez

I have written a series of similar one-liners if you would like to read them:

No argument

All behavior that does not harm another is naturally permitted.
All behavior that harms another is naturally forbidden.

The end result of harm is harm, which by definition is unnatural.

Nature creates, maintains, survives, adapts, improves, and so the concept of destruction is (for the sake of destruction?) is foreign to nature.

I think it ought to be understood along the lines of the differences between entropy and ectropy.

Therefore, it may be a good idea to offer a situation, and in this situation the reader can decide what the natural, harm-less, thing to do is, in this case.

You happen upon a long line of children standing in line going into a building.

You follow the line through the door, following the line of children and at the end of the line is a man busy cooking one child alive, and eating a child that has been cooked.

How do you proceed naturally?


Can you expound on

"The end result of harm is harm, which by definition is unnatural."
Thanks! and prepare to be challenged :)

In context

Absolute Rights,

Who decides what is or is not a challenge?

"The end result of harm is harm, which by definition is unnatural."

May I, please, remove some room for miscommunication?

The end result of harm (human beings resorting to deception, threat, and violence, so as to transfer power from targeted, innocent people, from the victims, to the criminals) is harm (to the criminals because the criminals harm their own capacity to know right from wrong, or their own capacity to accurately know the full measure of their willful actions that include them setting about to gain at the expense of a victim which results in them harming themselves), which by definition is unnatural (the unnatural use of life to destroy life instead of the natural use of life to reproduce, and make life worth reproducing life), and if that does not remove some potential for miscommunication then my reserving the POWER to improve upon the message so as to avoid conveying meaning that is not intended may avoid someone claiming to know what I intend to offer as my perspective despite my objections concerning what someone claims to be my intended message; if I see a miscommunication occur.

Who decides the intended meaning of the words I offer?


on to other things...


Check this out...

I would encourage you to read about a Universal Law which I derived, formalized, and expounded upon, and which is in sync with what you describe in this post. My post begins with - "A pervasive misconception of the golden rule - A Universal law revealed":

- AMAZING PHOTO delineating where UNRESTRAINED CAPITALISM has taken us:
- "The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated."-- Mohandas Gandhi

Thanks, I read this and

I like it. I think it is running along the same lines and is more accurate than the NAP which is incorrectly named and woefully inaccurate.

Here is a series of principles that go along with this one.

There should be a law agianst government helping people

because most of the harm that government does is in its attempts to help people.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.


The one characteristic that distinguishes government from society is that government claims the right to harm others with legal impunity.

the problem is . . .

there are people born into the world who want to help others and not, ever, hurt anyone else--

there are people born into the world who want to see how much they can get from others--

in all levels of society, in all 'classes', in all religions, in all 'races', in all nations, in all ethnic groups--

THAT is the challenge of being mortal.

it's hard to be awake; it's easier to dream--


And all of those different types of spirits are naturally forbidden from harming another.

The Inherent Definition of "Harm"

There is no specifically inherent definition for such a personal article as "harm", though your heart is in the right place. Consider that every individual has a perspective on what causes them "harm". You could assert that only physical harm has substance, but oftentimes mental or emotion distresses can evolve into a form of physical harm. Yet, if a nation protected its citizens from the mental or emotional distresses of others there could be no guaranteed freedom of speech. If this freedom of speech is not inherent to society, there is no way to check and balance the governance of the nation without aggression - which requires the inflicting of physical harm.

You are correct

And the subjective nature of harm is fully realized in this premise. If you 'd like to discuss it further, I am up to it.

I believe you -

We could debate for the rest of our natural lives on the meaning of "harm". It truly is founded on an individual understanding - which becomes nothing but a subconscious phantom when it is not acquired through personal acceptance. But thank you just the same.

I don't think it would be much of a debate...

because from what I gather, we agree that harm is totally subject to the perception of each individual. What harms one, may not harm another.
(the following is for the benefit of someone who may be reading this thread- I know you don't want to respond)
A very simple real life example:
If you studied karate with me then you would know I am perfectly okay with you kicking me in the leg, however your buddy might forbid the exact same behavior.

To me, getting kicked in the leg is beneficial and therefore I allow others to kick me in the leg on a regular basis.
To your buddy, getting kicked in the leg is harmful and therefore he would forbid others from kicking him in the leg.

Stranger still, I could consider getting kicked in the leg beneficial for the exact same reason he would consider it harmful...because it causes pain.

Naturally, your buddy forbids the harmful behavior. No legislature needed.

Where society is composed of individuals coexisting with one another in order to benefit themselves, the act of harming another is antithetical to society, and is naturally forbidden.

Then what - ?

Then, what do you suppose the absolute true and singular inherent law within society would be, if you believe there is one now?

By the way, I agree personally with your inference of "physical harm" - absorb, displace and release. There is nothing strange about finding a benefit in pain to me.

What I find most interesting is the "harm" caused by defamation and ontological manipulation. You can use a synthesis of these two to convince a population of anything, especially in a "guilty until proven guilty" society like ours. This type of "harm", albeit not physical, is far worse than any old-fashioned "beat-down".

then this

Reworded with the qualifiers:
"Do not initiate direct, proximate, and nonconsensual harm."

By the way, this is the foundation of what it takes to bring a valid court action against someone.
Specifically one must show:1.Duty 2.Breach of duty 3.which directly and proximately caused/will cause 4. Harm.

Government exempts itself from these elements as it pleases.

I would love to hear your opinion of the logical proof that I linked to you.

Criminal Mindset -

An entrapment case, Hampton v. US, set the legal precedence for the logic behind "direct, proximate, and non-consensual" with regards to criminal action - "possessing the intent to commit a criminal act". The context of the noun intent holds the complete summation of the adjectives direct and proximate. Non-consensual is too subjective and relies on the victim's mindset to substantiate, not the criminal. But in a legal system that seeks justice against the harm of an individual by another individual, intent really holds no merit - harm itself is what demands justice. Guilt and innocence is almost always a question of character, acting ability and social understanding.

However, I have been advised to refrain from heavy dialectic synthesis in online forums for financial reasons, so I cannot say more. But yes, the fact that government exempts itself from the law is the entire crux of our problem. Additionally, there is insufficient unity - and far too many outside interests - for an "Article V" movement to really affect this state. I would still push for new Amendments in my sliver of remaining optimism, but even with new written law at the people's disposal, why should it be followed by the government when the per-existing ones are not? They do not simply consider themselves "untouchable" - they are. It is already an accepted social and moral standard that some individuals necessarily deserve more liberty than others. Only radical solutions are left, and I see no logic at all behind giving them a reason to use all their new bullets and tanks on their own citizens.

yes mens rea/intent/willfulness

as always you deliver a well reasoned reply.

That's my answer to your question: The one universal restriction held in common by all societies:
do not initiate direct proximate nonconsensual harm.
The actual term isn't harm, its Injury-and one is not injured if one consents. I dumbed down the message for easier consumption by phrasing injury as nonconsensual harm.

Yes, in private matters, the victim's mindset is necessary to substantiate harm, if its consensual then its not actionable-See our previous discussion. You can try to hurt me in karate class because you are a butt, but if I'm game, then so be it. HARDER! YEAH.

Duty, breach of duty, which directly and proximately causes injury, are the 4 elements one needs to demonstrate for a valid PRIVATE cause of action.

Government makes its own rules when administrating its punitive measures and it may consider intent/willfulness/mens rea, many times it does not.

Duty, Breach of duty, which directly and proximately causes, injury.

No injury, no private matters.
I agree with you about the state of the state :)
It would take a large group of government workers to turn against their teet for reform to happen.
ALSO, though, I think we need to come up with a solid political platform. One that isn't errant and is easily understood by the masses.
I can't believe the libertarians haven't done this yet. They have the non-aggressions principle. which as I understand it, isn't about aggression at all, but about the initiating of nonconsensual harm. Its a terribly errant label. Or the initiation of force, when they mean the initiation of harm. (this conversation is an aggressive initiation of force:lol)And they say things like "the market will fix itself", that's wrong too.

If we could straighten out these messages so that we don't have to argue for 15 minutes over every wrong point we make then we could go move individual liberty forward a lot further.

I never have to argue with anyone when I say 1+1=2. Simple and true.
"You can best decide for yourself."
"It's your money, you should get to choose"
"It's your time, you decide for yourself"
"You know your situation better than the lawmakers do."
"Don't harm anyone and don't let anyone harm you"
These are just off the top of my head.

A return to previously-covered territory

We've discussed this before. Non-physical harm can and often does result in physical injury. Exempli gratia: a person may "consent" to taking part in an pyramid scheme, and the result of that participation may only mean financial "injury" is incurred. Many people consent to this type of "hidden injury" every day. What is the difference between a friendly, smiling thief and one holding a gun? Is "harm" only incurred if the gun discharges, or if the victim turns tables and injures their assailant? Likewise, slander and the popular-pervasive mechanism of "reality distortion" cause no immediate physical injury and are protected by the First Amendment, yet these two are the exact causes of our current state of ruin and result in untold injury to national integrity and individual liberty.

Just because you don't mind taking a knife-hand strike to the side of your face at the dojo doesn't mean you're wife or husband won't have it out for me the next day over it. Everything is connected. If that spouse hits me in the back of the head with a lead pipe (or a fist, for that matter) they could justify the action as the consequence of your consent. The wife did not consent to having her husband's face bruised - not only could this have somehow injured her appearance as a wife (which could cause her social harm,) it caused me physical injury by her hands. The husband feels a similar social stigma when his wife appears to have been beaten. Is he an abusive alcoholic? Nobody initially assumes she simply enjoys sparring with her sensei. It's a crude analogy that holds no legal relevance, but it exposes the structure of the mechanism. To ensure both individual liberty and the execution of justice for the social collective the republic must take into consideration the individual right to justice. As a "humanistic" generation living in the shadows of Hitler and Stalin, physical "harm" is becoming an archaic device. The greatest danger to liberty is the force that operates without causing physical injury.

this is important for me to wrap my head around

"a person may "consent" to taking part in an pyramid scheme, and the result of that participation may only mean financial "injury" is incurred"- But they didn't consent to the "injury". If they did, then it is not actionable...what if in consideration for potential earnings, I consent to losing all my money in this pyramid scheme.

"you don't mind taking a knife-hand strike to the side of your face at the dojo doesn't mean you're wife or husband won't have it out for me the next day over it."... what if in consideration for learning deadly self defense techniques, I consent to all manners of physical, mental, financial, and emotional loss caused enduring such training, including becoming permanently disabled and death"

"If that spouse hits me in the back of the head with a lead pipe (or a fist, for that matter) they could justify the action as the consequence of your consent."...this sounds like vigilantism, and these situations are the reason we have a court system. If I understand this scenario correctly, you did not consent to having the spouse assault you, therefor she is violating the do not initiate direct, proximate and nonconsensual harm (injury)principle and would be responsible for restoring you as well as suffering some kind of punishment. And these mechanisms all exists today in our judicial system.

"The wife did not consent to having her husband's face bruised - not only could this have somehow injured her appearance as a wife (which could cause her social harm,): This "social harm" example is the reason why the courts have drawn a bright line in the chain of injury with the direct and proximate test; this example does not sound as though it would meet that standard.

"The husband feels a similar social stigma when his wife appears to have been beaten. Is he an abusive alcoholic? Nobody initially assumes she simply enjoys sparring with her sensei."...Again,the direct and proximate test, as well as being able to substantiate the injury.

Also, you must remember there are a series of "checks" that come along with this/our system.
-Your diligence not to initiate direct, proximate, and nonconsensual harm (injury).
-the sensibilities of the injured party.
-A judge validating the injured is able to substantiate the 4 elements
(duty-breach of duty-which caused direct and proximate-injury)
-A petite jury unanimously agreeing with the position of the harmed party.

If you can point out specifically where I'm missing the boat, I'd appreciate it.
"...the individual right to justice"...can you point me to reading on this?

"physical "harm" is becoming an archaic device. The greatest danger to liberty is the force that operates without causing physical injury."
absolutely, physical harm, or physical injury is just one type of injury that can exist. As you've mentioned before, there are an infinite number of ways one may injure another. I hope physical injury quickly becomes outmoded, because I am tired of reading about government physically molesting individuals. Suspicious butt clench lately? lol

Short-sighted Refraction

I think I will "point you to reading" on the issue of the right to justice first, being that it is the first right guaranteed by the US Constitution. ". . . in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice . . . do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." The preamble sets the context of the document. The existence of the republic in our case hinges on the establishment of justice, else it has no purpose. If there wasn't a need for justice, there would be no government. This, in all of the muddying and blind retracing, looking for the higher-ground advantage in your debate style, has been the point that your head has never been wrapped around. I never once stated that anything currently deployed by the system was inadequate - in fact, that was your initial argument. What you have attempted to do is "show me" just how flimsy these legal algorithms are by dialectic muddying, but I can assure you that I did not need your help in gaining that type of enlightenment.

Again, what my analogies set out to accomplish was not to explain the current system as it stands (as I explicitly stated the argument concerning "karate" - which mused through your leading - had no legal relevance, seemingly to no effect). The crisis concerning financial loss due to pyramid-schemes is already addressed by the current legal system - we all know they are illegal. But - not because I believe you lack the capacity to understand, but because this is debate for debate's sake - what you have missed is the context. The illegality of the pyramid-scheme exists because it is known to cause financial harm, but this is a minimalist example of a broader concept. Many legal schemes still exist, and many "consenting" participants still embrace them to similar effects. Is the difference one of actual circumstance, then, or one of mob-acceptance?

But I am not surprised - your line of questioning was never explicitly stated within an absolute paradigm, floundering from a bookish legality to an idealistic anarchy at will. Are we debating a literal meaning or a conventional meaning within social-standards? If you set out to determine the underlying truth in language, you should first set out to understand its mechanics - not grammar, but psychological function. In every example I gave you, that was the difference I was illustrating, not (again, as I explicitly stated) the legal merit as it would stand in a courtroom. But I do not blame you for your style of rhetoric - I blame the cultural system you are drawing your arguments from.

What you and I can't seem to agree upon - and rightly, given its nature - is what exactly defines that justice. It is as relative and subjective as the cause of debate itself, for no other reason, which is such an interesting study neither one of us seems to want to stop. I don't believe I ever stated that you missed the boat where the legal system of checks already in place are concerned - please feel free to retrace anything I have said to you (in this thread or otherwise) if I am contradicting myself, though I am certain I am not.

easy there

I was not under the impression we were debating. I'm learning as fast as I can. Your snark is not necessary as I'm discussing this topic with you so I can learn from you. I'm sorry for offending you.
Peace brother.
This was your question: "Then, what do you suppose the absolute true and singular inherent law within society would be, if you believe there is one now?"

This is my answer: Do not initiate direct, proximate, and nonconsensual harm.

Why? Because society is merely the rewarding relationship of two or more individuals. Therefor initiating direct, proximate, and nonconsensual harm is antithetical to society. It's a definitional position.

Also, there is a difference between consenting to an activity and consenting to the potential consequences from engaging in that activity. Pyramid schemes, Karate, drinking raw milk, taking drugs, living life. Buying insurance...(legalized gambling).

About my awkwardly worded request for more information about the right to individual justice, I was asking for more direction so I read without taking up your time.

I a was asking where I am going astray in my other words, where am i diverging from your train of thought?

I asked so that I can evaluate the merits of your position determine whether or not I want to adopt it as my own. As in, maybe I'm missing something important, maybe I haven't considered an aspect. That way I can learn, grow, and get some mileage out of this conversation.

My understanding of Political Anarchy is the absence of government or or having a legislative body of such limited power that does not have authority to make law about the private affairs of individuals. It does not mean the absence of a judicial system.

The origin of government and the origin of judicial systems are not the same, even though the government runs the judicial system in our country, it is not a necessity or even a positive attribute. Probably the biggest mistake (from the perspective of individual liberty)the framers made was having the judiciary funded by the government.

Easy how?

What you consider "snark" is really your failure to see that we are indeed still debating. The issue I brought to your attention was that to simply state "do no harm" as an inherent law does not make any absolute article out of harm itself. And what was your new answer? Don't "initiate direct, proximate, and non-consensual harm". That is like defining the word "difficult" by stating something that is difficult. Instead of attempting to look for further truth in social structure, you are attempting to re-validate your original argument. That is what I would call debate.

If you do not like the tone of my posts, get rid of your circular logic and address my question. There is no need to patronize. Without having to fall back on legal rhetoric or tautology, is there a way to define an inherent law that appears in Nature concerning society?

Your snarky tone doesn't bother me...

You can get as snarky and upset as you wish, I just wanted you to know that it is not necessary for you to get upset or snarky. I will consider your thoughts either with or without snark. Also, if you believe attempting to clarify and understand equals a debate then you wouldn't last long at my family's dinner table-HA!

Now onto HARM and Society:
"Harm" is subjective. Totally unique to each individual.
"Society" is simply one individual interacting with another individual with the goal of each individual fulfilling their own desires- multiplied by as many individuals and relationships that compose your chosen sampling.

The initiation of direct proximate and nonconsensual Harm is ANTITHETICAL to this beneficial relationship...and therefore this is the one "law"/"rule"/"governance" that naturally restricts (meaning without a legislature needing to write down a statute) the behavior of individuals.

this is not circular, it is definitional. Feel free to show me the error of my ways so I can learn...or don't. Either way I'm sure to enjoy your response

Neither -

Who is to say I was upset? Because I have identified your dancing around the questions I set before you instead of addressing them? And you would do well to consider my thoughts with or without "snark" - I'm not entirely sure what you mean by that now.

So, you have finally identified that "do no harm" is not a law inherent to society. Now, can you do me a favor and tell me if you still believe there is one? Or would that require a night of wordy labyrinths over dinner with your family?

you never fail to


The Non Aggression Principle - NAP

Ron Paul discusses this, and many libertarians refer to this simple principle. I learned it from Stefan Molyneux.

NAP moves in the right direction

Although it moves in the right direction. As the NAP is nuanced, it unravels itself into "do not harm another."