Evil In Itself, or Just Forbidden?

What was once permissible, is now forbidden. What was first allowed, is now punishable. What was initially tolerated, is now a crime against the State. This is what happens when the conception of what is illegal is confused with what is actually evil.

 

 

Mala in se is the idea that something is wrong or otherwise evil in and of itself. These are actions that are so abhorrent that they can never be reconciled with human liberty. Such conduct includes theftkidnapping, murder, and rape. The understanding of these behaviors were developed into Common Law offenses.

Mala prohibita is the legal notion that something is illegal only as a violation of some sort of statute, instead of being inherently immoral. While not necessarily wrong or even despicable, illegal conduct is as such because a code or rule of some kind (such as statute that is passed by a legislature and enforced by the police and various bureaucracies) has been technically broken. This can range everything from truancy & practicing without a license to tax evasion & copyright infringement. It is quite typical for most, if not all, mala prohibita to be exclusively offenses against the State, especially if they are considered victimless.

Gauging what actions are mala prohibita without being mala in se is a tricky, yet integral, proposition. Defending yourself from the initiation of violence by someone else is in accordance with the Non-Aggression Principle, but what if that initiation of violence was being done by a bureaucrat, a legislator, a judge, or (dare I say it?) … a police officer? Granted, physically defending yourself from any of these agents of the State is mala prohibita, but the question is, would it be mala in se? Or how about sabotaging government property? Instead of a SWAT team killing more innocent people (just like the militarized police have done with Vicki Weaver and Jose Guerena), what if by removing the firing pins in their guns you saved their lives? Would that really violate mala in se?

Just food for thought. As always, only you are ultimately responsible for what you decide to do. Your life is your own. Make it count.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Dissident Philosophy. Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Evil In Itself, or Just Forbidden?

  1. Tom Speed says:

    http://www.glanvillenet.info/roanhg7.htm

    ” My lords, as there is mention made in the additional clause of sovereign power, so is there likewise of a trust reposed in his Majesty, touching the use of sovereign power.

    The word “Trust” is of great latitude and large extent, and therefore ought to be well and warily applied and restrained, especially in the case of a king: there is a trust inseparably reposed in the persons of the kings of England, but that trust is regulated by law. For example, when statutes are made to prohibit things not MALA IN SE, but only MALA QUIA PROHIBITA, under certain forfeitures, and penalties, to accrue to the king, and to the informers that shall sue for the breach of them; the Commons must and ever will acknowledge a regal and sovereign prerogative in the king, touching such statutes, that it is in his Majesty’s absolute and undoubted power to grant dispensations to particular persons, with the clauses of non obstante, to do as they might have done before those statutes, wherein his Majesty, conferring grace and favour upon some, doth not do wrong to others.

    But there is a difference between those statutes, and the laws and statutes whereupon the petition is grounded: by those statutes the subject has no interest in the penalties, which are all the fruit such statutes can produce, until by suit or information commenced he become entitled to the particular forfeitures; whereas the laws and statutes mentioned in our petition are of another nature; there shall your lordships find us rely upon the good old statute, called Magna Charta, which declareth and confirmeth the ancient common laws of the liberties of England: there shall your lordships also find us to insist upon divers other most material statutes, made in the time of Kings Edw. III. and Edw. IV., and other famous kings, for explanation and ratification of the lawful rights and privileges belonging to the subjects of this realm: LAWS NOT INFLICTING PENALTIES UPON OFFENDERS, IN MALIS PROHIBITIS, but laws DECLARATIVE OR POSITIVE, conferring or confirming, ipso facto, an inherent right and interest of liberty and freedom in the subjects of this realm, as their birthrights and inheritance descendable to their heirs and posterity; statutes incorporate into the body of the common law, over which (with reverence be it spoken) THERE IS ***NO TRUST REPOSED*** in the king’s “sovereign power,” or “prerogative royal,” to enable him to dispense with them, or to take from his subjects that birthright or inheritance which they have in their liberties, by virtue of the common law and of these statutes.

    But if this clause be added to our petition, we shall then make a dangerous overture to confound this good destination touching what statutes the king ia trusted to control by dispensations, and what not; and shall give an intimation to posterity, as if it were the opinion both of the Lords and Commons assembled in this Parliament, that there is a trust reposed in the king, to lay aside by his “sovereign power,” in some emergent cases, as well the Common-Law, and such statutes as declare or ratify the subjects’ liberty, or Confer interest upon their persons, as those other penal statutes of such nature as I have mentioned before; which, as we can by no means admit, so we believe assuredly, that it is far from the desire of our most gracious sovereign, to effect so vast a trust, which being transmitted to a successor of a different temper, might enable him to alter the whole frame and fabric of the commonwealth, and to resolve that government whereby this kingdom hath flourished for so many years and ages, under his Majesty’s most royal ancestors and predecessors. ”

    The clause that was removed from the draft of the English ‘Declaration of Rights’ was ‘by Sovereign power’ 🙂 i.e, no Sovereign Power nor any ‘Parliament’, is greater than that which the Magna Carta Declares, and that, is that the common Law is THE most FUNDAMENTAL LAW there is.

    Parliaments, ‘Remedial Statutes’, Legal Fictions… can all GET FUCKED!

    Long live the Common Law, prison to ALL its deniers & traitors. 😛

  2. Pingback: Austin City Council Meeting (9.27.12) - Liberty Under Attack

  3. Pingback: Austin Municipal Court Docket Session (10.05.2015) - Liberty Under Attack

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s