A-Infos (en) Mexico, FAM-IFA - Regeneración #10: The definition of "Law"... (ca, de, it, pt, tr)[machine translation]

The definition of "Law" in the field of philosophy refers to a concept applicable 
at all times and space. If on the political spectrum the concept has a meaning 
that emanates from the heights of political power towards the governed, from the 
philosophical angle it implies a "something" that is applicable at all times and 
spaces without exception. ---- In this way, when the one whom Rudolf Rocker 
called "bourgeois democrat", Karl Marx (1), speaks of "Immanent, immovable Laws", 
etc., regarding the critique of capitalism, we must ask ourselves if the thing 
has the slightest seriousness. A Law, applied to economic concepts as Marx does, 
refers to an act or fact applicable at all times and spaces. If for some reason 
the concept has a single exception, a single moment in which it is not 
applicable, calling it a Law cannot be done except based on ignorance.

I will not delve into refuting the absurdity of trying to establish fixed 
concepts regarding the critique of political economy (2), since this would take 
us away from the central theme of this article, but it is obvious to anyone who 
studies the matter that talking about Laws on this subject is something quite 
ridiculous.

Virtually no concept deserves the application of Law, since this very concept 
alludes to an inescapable and inevitable "something", and with the exception of 
mathematics (3) and natural Laws (4), the concept is usually used in very little 
ways. responsible.

From the political point of view and given the laughable way in which the same 
politicians make fun of their Laws, things present a different aspect to those 
previously commented.

The Government of Mexico (Legislative Information System) says the following 
regarding the Law, which is not far from what has been said by the Governments of 
any part of the world:

"From the legal point of view, it is a legal norm in which the State addresses 
its subjects to set between them and itself the limits of what is permitted" (5)

The words are quite clear in this definition: the so-called Law is not a concept 
emanating from human logic and the consent of the people. It does not come from 
logic, as is evident, because if these Laws were the result of logic, such as 
drinking water to stay hydrated or that collaboration between its components is 
necessary to survive as a species, all the arsenals would not be necessary. of 
arms and the thousands and thousands of uniformed thugs charged with repressing 
by means of arms all that dares to defy the Law. As a result of logic, no 
coercion would be necessary for it to be fulfilled, in the same way that there is 
no armed group in charge of forcing people to drink water, nor another in charge 
of making effective collaboration between people for the survival of the species.

Each weapon and each uniformed person does not constitute anything other than the 
confirmation that the political Law is alien to human nature and that it requires 
coercion to be exercised.

Nor does it come from the consent of the peoples since at birth we already find 
ourselves with all the written codes and we are not asked for our consent for 
their acceptance or our opinion on the goodness or badness of legal Laws. They 
are imposed on us, without consultation or choice.

Even when we already have a sufficient adult age to recognize or reject said 
Laws, from the cradle to the grave the legislative scaffolding is imposed on us 
by the force of the economy, politics or by physical force. It resembles the idea 
of God, which is imposed on infants at an age where they cannot question it, and 
which adults in centuries past are given the option of accepting the idea or 
burning at the stake.

When we do not even have the ability to speak, the Law and religion are imposed 
on us, so that many people growing up accept these precepts as part of their 
lives, with which they have always lived, and they lent themselves to being 
informers in times of trouble. the Inquisition against heretics and atheists, or 
currently lend themselves to being informers of the police, Treasury and 
governments in all times and places.

The lack of logic of the Law and its lack of popular consent is manifested when 
the new phrase that says "Ignoring the Law does not exempt you from complying 
with it" appears.

We read in article 21 of the Federal Civil Code of Mexico in its 2021 reform:

"Ignorance of the laws does not excuse their compliance; but the judges, taking 
into account the notorious intellectual backwardness of some individuals, their 
removal from the means of communication or their miserable economic situation, 
may, if the Public Ministry agrees, exempt them from the sanctions they may have 
incurred for lack of compliance. of the law that they were unaware of, or if 
possible, grant them a term to comply with it; as long as it is not about laws 
that directly affect the public interest" (6)

Apart from noting how he calls those who do not know the Law fools and poor and 
how he does not allude to any capitalist or bourgeois since it seems that they, 
the capitalists, know everything, the situation is clear: even when your brain 
does not have the knowledge of a Law, you must comply with... what you don't 
know, is there any greater absurdity?

Then, when you break a Law that you were unaware of and some punishment is 
applied to you, the Government can take pity on you for not complying with 
something that you were not aware of and can give you the "benefit" (!) of paying 
your punishment in a certain time. Seeing that the text refers to a possible 
forgiveness or postponement of compliance with the Law to the poor and fools, the 
thing also indicates that this Law does not apply to the capitalists and 
bourgeoisie, nor to the political class.

Such are friends and friends the kind of absurdities raised to the degree of Law 
that apply to people's lives, but of which people, you may ask yourself?

In the first quote from the Mexican legislature, the following is clearly 
indicated when defining the concept of Law: "it is a legal norm in which the 
State addresses its subjects to set between them and itself the limits of what is 
permitted."

The State is the one who sets the rules and it does so by addressing its 
subjects, its slaves. Since the State is the one that sets the rules for its 
slaves, these laws are applicable only to the subjects and not to the masters.

It is not necessary to be a specialist in Law to see that at all times and in all 
countries the political class robs, kills, rapes and tortures to its heart's 
content without ever being punished. And the thing is logical: the Law is 
applicable to the subjects, not to the State and its components and the benefit 
of the jurisdiction with which they are clothed is the verification of this. From 
this point of view we have to recognize that at least they have not lied to us: 
the Laws are only applicable to the working classes, on whom all the punishments, 
all the duties, all the restrictions weigh, leaving all the rights to the 
statists, all the privileges, all the liberties.

The servants of the State, who are not exactly the political class, also achieve 
a part of impunity: police and military who steal, kill, torture and never pay 
for these crimes.

The Law of the States, to summarize, is not the result of logic or popular 
consensus. Nor is it an equitable instrument, but a weapon of the State over the 
peoples.

People need to be aware that the Law does not serve justice or the people, and 
that far from being a liberation tool, it is the shackle that the State puts on 
its slaves.

There are, however, some laws that we do respect and that we fight for their 
implementation: they are those that are the result of our condition as a sociable 
species that indicates that fraternity and solidarity are necessary to advance as 
a species; that which indicates that all people, by the very fact of being born, 
have the right to the Earth, to inhabit it, to work it and to live; the one that 
indicates that people have the right to satisfy their natural needs without this 
implying submission to the capitalists and bourgeoisie, while they live 
wonderfully without lifting a finger to earn food.

Abolition of political laws. Satisfaction of human needs.

Erick Benitez Martinez. January 2023

Grades:

1.- Rudolf Rocker, Artists and Rebels, page 111. Reconstruct Editions. Mexico, 1989.

2.- In my introductory book on Proudhon's thought, I offer abundant arguments in 
favor of the fact that economics and the critique of political economy contain in 
themselves all the links between productive elements, added to the oscillating 
movements of supply and supply. demand that make it impossible not only to fix 
the value, but practically no concept given the enormous complexity of economic 
relations that remain always variable and mobile, and not fixed and static.

3.- I have to admit my lack of advanced studies in mathematics, an exception that 
does not make me ignore the existence of complex mathematical operations where, 
despite the relentless logic of numbers, a certain degree of rupture with basic 
logic and the Law is possible. .

4.- By "natural Laws" I mean the natural Laws applicable only to our galaxy and 
to the extent that human knowledge has allowed us to study the Universe. There 
are other galaxies where our "logic" does not exist or it is possible to 
interpret it in ways very different from the common ones.

5.- http://sil.gobernacion.gob.mx/Glosario/definicionpop.php?ID=145

6.- http://www.ordenjuridico.gob.mx/Documentos/Federal/html/wo17186.html
_________________________________________
A - I N F O S  N E W S  S E R V I C E
By, For, and About Anarchists
Send news reports to A-infos-en mailing list
A-infos-en@ainfos.ca
Subscribe/Unsubscribe https://ainfos.ca/mailman/listinfo/a-infos-en
Archive: http://ainfos.ca/en