Wednesday, 31 July 2013

The 95 Theses by Rev. Martin Luther of Germany - Some Comments...

Rev. Martin Luther's 95 Theses

I am to write some commenting to Luther's 95 Theses. In addition, I'll add some to them, that relates.
For example no God's word, no Holy Ghost. Now cleared by information society and greater access to Latin to English translation means.

Martin Luther’s 95 Theses in Latin and English
The original text of Martin Luther’s 95 Theses in original Latin and translated English text. More correctly the 95 Theses was actually called the “Disputation on the Power and Efficacy of Indulgences” by Dr. Martin Luther (1517).
English text first, Latin text follows:
Disputation of Doctor Martin Luther
on the Power and Efficacy of Indulgences
by Dr. Martin Luther (1517) Published in:
Works of Martin Luther:
Adolph Spaeth, L.D. Reed, Henry Eyster Jacobs, et Al., Trans. & Eds.
(Philadelphia: A. J. Holman Company, 1915), Vol.1, pp. 29-38

_______________

    Out of love for the truth and the desire to bring it to light, the following propositions will be discussed at Wittenberg, under the presidency of the Reverend Father Martin Luther, Master of Arts and of Sacred Theology, and Lecturer in Ordinary on the same at that place. Wherefore he requests that those who are unable to be present and debate orally with us, may do so by letter.

    In the Name our Lord Jesus Christ. Amen.

        1. Our Lord and Master Jesus Christ, when He said Poenitentiam agite, willed that the whole life of believers should be repentance.
        2. This word cannot be understood to mean sacramental penance, i.e., confession and satisfaction, which is administered by the priests.
        3. Yet it means not inward repentance only; nay, there is no inward repentance which does not outwardly work divers mortifications of the flesh.
        4. The penalty [of sin], therefore, continues so long as hatred of self continues; for this is the true inward repentance, and continues until our entrance into the kingdom of heaven.
        5. The pope does not intend to remit, and cannot remit any penalties other than those which he has imposed either by his own authority or by that of the Canons.
        6. The pope cannot remit any guilt, except by declaring that it has been remitted by God and by assenting to God’s remission; though, to be sure, he may grant remission in cases reserved to his judgment. If his right to grant remission in such cases were despised, the guilt would remain entirely unforgiven.
        7. God remits guilt to no one whom He does not, at the same time, humble in all things and bring into subjection to His vicar, the priest.
        8. The penitential canons are imposed only on the living, and, according to them, nothing should be imposed on the dying.
        9. Therefore the Holy Spirit in the pope is kind to us, because in his decrees he always makes exception of the article of death and of necessity.
        10. Ignorant and wicked are the doings of those priests who, in the case of the dying, reserve canonical penances for purgatory.
        11. This changing of the canonical penalty to the penalty of purgatory is quite evidently one of the tares that were sown while the bishops slept.
        12. In former times the canonical penalties were imposed not after, but before absolution, as tests of true contrition.
        13. The dying are freed by death from all penalties; they are already dead to canonical rules, and have a right to be released from them.
        14. The imperfect health [of soul], that is to say, the imperfect love, of the dying brings with it, of necessity, great fear; and the smaller the love, the greater is the fear.
        15. This fear and horror is sufficient of itself alone (to say nothing of other things) to constitute the penalty of purgatory, since it is very near to the horror of despair.
        16. Hell, purgatory, and heaven seem to differ as do despair, almost-despair, and the assurance of safety.
        17. With souls in purgatory it seems necessary that horror should grow less and love increase.
        18. It seems unproved, either by reason or Scripture, that they are outside the state of merit, that is to say, of increasing love.
        19. Again, it seems unproved that they, or at least that all of them, are certain or assured of their own blessedness, though we may be quite certain of it.
        20. Therefore by “full remission of all penalties” the pope means not actually “of all,” but only of those imposed by himself.

        21. Therefore those preachers of indulgences are in error, who say that by the pope’s indulgences a man is freed from every penalty, and saved;

        22. Whereas he remits to souls in purgatory no penalty which, according to the canons, they would have had to pay in this life.

        23. If it is at all possible to grant to any one the remission of all penalties whatsoever, it is certain that this remission can be granted only to the most perfect, that is, to the very fewest.

        24. It must needs be, therefore, that the greater part of the people are deceived by that indiscriminate and highsounding promise of release from penalty.

        25. The power which the pope has, in a general way, over purgatory, is just like the power which any bishop or curate has, in a special way, within his own diocese or parish.

        26. The pope does well when he grants remission to souls [in purgatory], not by the power of the keys (which he does not possess), but by way of intercession.

        27. They preach man who say that so soon as the penny jingles into the money-box, the soul flies out [of purgatory].

        28. It is certain that when the penny jingles into the money-box, gain and avarice can be increased, but the result of the intercession of the Church is in the power of God alone.

        29. Who knows whether all the souls in purgatory wish to be bought out of it, as in the legend of Sts. Severinus and Paschal.

        30. No one is sure that his own contrition is sincere; much less that he has attained full remission.

        31. Rare as is the man that is truly penitent, so rare is also the man who truly buys indulgences, i.e., such men are most rare.

        32. They will be condemned eternally, together with their teachers, who believe themselves sure of their salvation because they have letters of pardon.

        33. Men must be on their guard against those who say that the pope’s pardons are that inestimable gift of God by which man is reconciled to Him;

        34. For these “graces of pardon” concern only the penalties of sacramental satisfaction, and these are appointed by man.

        35. They preach no Christian doctrine who teach that contrition is not necessary in those who intend to buy souls out of purgatory or to buy confessionalia.

        36. Every truly repentant Christian has a right to full remission of penalty and guilt, even without letters of pardon.

        37. Every true Christian, whether living or dead, has part in all the blessings of Christ and the Church; and this is granted him by God, even without letters of pardon.

        38. Nevertheless, the remission and participation [in the blessings of the Church] which are granted by the pope are in no way to be despised, for they are, as I have said, the declaration of divine remission.

        39. It is most difficult, even for the very keenest theologians, at one and the same time to commend to the people the abundance of pardons and [the need of] true contrition.

        40. True contrition seeks and loves penalties, but liberal pardons only relax penalties and cause them to be hated, or at least, furnish an occasion [for hating them].

        41. Apostolic pardons are to be preached with caution, lest the people may falsely think them preferable to other good works of love.

        42. Christians are to be taught that the pope does not intend the buying of pardons to be compared in any way to works of mercy.

        43. Christians are to be taught that he who gives to the poor or lends to the needy does a better work than buying pardons;

        44. Because love grows by works of love, and man becomes better; but by pardons man does not grow better, only more free from penalty.

        45. Christians are to be taught that he who sees a man in need, and passes him by, and gives [his money] for pardons, purchases not the indulgences of the pope, but the indignation of God.

        46. Christians are to be taught that unless they have more than they need, they are bound to keep back what is necessary for their own families, and by no means to squander it on pardons.

        47. Christians are to be taught that the buying of pardons is a matter of free will, and not of commandment.

        48. Christians are to be taught that the pope, in granting pardons, needs, and therefore desires, their devout prayer for him more than the money they bring.

        49. Christians are to be taught that the pope’s pardons are useful, if they do not put their trust in them; but altogether harmful, if through them they lose their fear of God.

        50. Christians are to be taught that if the pope knew the exactions of the pardon-preachers, he would rather that St. Peter’s church should go to ashes, than that it should be built up with the skin, flesh and bones of his sheep.

        51. Christians are to be taught that it would be the pope’s wish, as it is his duty, to give of his own money to very many of those from whom certain hawkers of pardons cajole money, even though the church of St. Peter might have to be sold.

        52. The assurance of salvation by letters of pardon is vain, even though the commissary, nay, even though the pope himself, were to stake his soul upon it.

        53. They are enemies of Christ and of the pope, who bid the Word of God be altogether silent in some Churches, in order that pardons may be preached in others.

        54. Injury is done the Word of God when, in the same sermon, an equal or a longer time is spent on pardons than on this Word.

        55. It must be the intention of the pope that if pardons, which are a very small thing, are celebrated with one bell, with single processions and ceremonies, then the Gospel, which is the very greatest thing, should be preached with a hundred bells, a hundred processions, a hundred ceremonies.

        56. The “treasures of the Church,” out of which the pope. grants indulgences, are not sufficiently named or known among the people of Christ.

        57. That they are not temporal treasures is certainly evident, for many of the vendors do not pour out such treasures so easily, but only gather them.

        58. Nor are they the merits of Christ and the Saints, for even without the pope, these always work grace for the inner man, and the cross, death, and hell for the outward man.

        59. St. Lawrence said that the treasures of the Church were the Church’s poor, but he spoke according to the usage of the word in his own time.

        60. Without rashness we say that the keys of the Church, given by Christ’s merit, are that treasure;

        61. For it is clear that for the remission of penalties and of reserved cases, the power of the pope is of itself sufficient.

        62. The true treasure of the Church is the Most Holy Gospel of the glory and the grace of God.

        63. But this treasure is naturally most odious, for it makes the first to be last.

        64. On the other hand, the treasure of indulgences is naturally most acceptable, for it makes the last to be first.

        65. Therefore the treasures of the Gospel are nets with which they formerly were wont to fish for men of riches.

        66. The treasures of the indulgences are nets with which they now fish for the riches of men.

        67. The indulgences which the preachers cry as the “greatest graces” are known to be truly such, in so far as they promote gain.

        68. Yet they are in truth the very smallest graces compared with the grace of God and the piety of the Cross.

        69. Bishops and curates are bound to admit the commissaries of apostolic pardons, with all reverence.

        70. But still more are they bound to strain all their eyes and attend with all their ears, lest these men preach their own dreams instead of the commission of the pope.

        71. He who speaks against the truth of apostolic pardons, let him be anathema and accursed!

        72. But he who guards against the lust and license of the pardon-preachers, let him be blessed!

        73. The pope justly thunders against those who, by any art, contrive the injury of the traffic in pardons.

        74. But much more does he intend to thunder against those who use the pretext of pardons to contrive the injury of holy love and truth.

        75. To think the papal pardons so great that they could absolve a man even if he had committed an impossible sin and violated the Mother of God — this is madness.

        76. We say, on the contrary, that the papal pardons are not able to remove the very least of venial sins, so far as its guilt is concerned.

        77. It is said that even St. Peter, if he were now Pope, could not bestow greater graces; this is blasphemy against St. Peter and against the pope.

        78. We say, on the contrary, that even the present pope, and any pope at all, has greater graces at his disposal; to wit, the Gospel, powers, gifts of healing, etc., as it is written in I. Corinthians xii.

        79. To say that the cross, emblazoned with the papal arms, which is set up [by the preachers of indulgences], is of equal worth with the Cross of Christ, is blasphemy.

        80. The bishops, curates and theologians who allow such talk to be spread among the people, will have an account to render.

        81. This unbridled preaching of pardons makes it no easy matter, even for learned men, to rescue the reverence due to the pope from slander, or even from the shrewd questionings of the laity.

        82. To wit: — “Why does not the pope empty purgatory, for the sake of holy love and of the dire need of the souls that are there, if he redeems an infinite number of souls for the sake of miserable money with which to build a Church? The former reasons would be most just; the latter is most trivial.”

        83. Again: — “Why are mortuary and anniversary masses for the dead continued, and why does he not return or permit the withdrawal of the endowments founded on their behalf, since it is wrong to pray for the redeemed?”

        84. Again: — “What is this new piety of God and the pope, that for money they allow a man who is impious and their enemy to buy out of purgatory the pious soul of a friend of God, and do not rather, because of that pious and beloved soul’s own need, free it for pure love’s sake?”

        85. Again: — “Why are the penitential canons long since in actual fact and through disuse abrogated and dead, now satisfied by the granting of indulgences, as though they were still alive and in force?”

        86. Again: — “Why does not the pope, whose wealth is to-day greater than the riches of the richest, build just this one church of St. Peter with his own money, rather than with the money of poor believers?”

        87. Again: — “What is it that the pope remits, and what participation does he grant to those who, by perfect contrition, have a right to full remission and participation?”

        88. Again: — “What greater blessing could come to the Church than if the pope were to do a hundred times a day what he now does once, and bestow on every believer these remissions and participations?”

        89. “Since the pope, by his pardons, seeks the salvation of souls rather than money, why does he suspend the indulgences and pardons granted heretofore, since these have equal efficacy?”

        90. To repress these arguments and scruples of the laity by force alone, and not to resolve them by giving reasons, is to expose the Church and the pope to the ridicule of their enemies, and to make Christians unhappy.

        91. If, therefore, pardons were preached according to the spirit and mind of the pope, all these doubts would be readily resolved; nay, they would not exist.

        92. Away, then, with all those prophets who say to the people of Christ, “Peace, peace,” and there is no peace!

        93. Blessed be all those prophets who say to the people of Christ, “Cross, cross,” and there is no cross!

        94. Christians are to be exhorted that they be diligent in following Christ, their Head, through penalties, deaths, and hell;

        95. And thus be confident of entering into heaven rather through many tribulations, than through the assurance of peace.

Source: Internet somewhere. I need some more time to have the location supplied here, but the words are everywhere, I therefore make this available right away, while correctly citing Rev. Martin Luther's name!

The Forms after Plato - Some History of Christianity - Respects to Rev. Luther of Germany

- If one seeks to hold the forms, by Plato/Augustine, the highest with any church, one commits a worse deadly sin than any other deadly sin and it is, by consequence, to strike away these 3 important groups from the Bible, out of which one is "only" ignorance:

- Stricken: The 7/8 Virtues (8th as "Conscientia".)
- Stricken: The 10 Commandments
- Ignored: The 7/8 Vices
-- with the 8th Vice being stick with the Forms, i.e., the rituals, the words themselves only formally, the invokes, by theory of theology, an Induction to Christianity as a kind of religious test of nature to actually make Christians by having them to say words and to undergo religious rituals, the liturgy, the highest, that is, to support the formalities of the Church, any set, incl. possibly all, higher than the Word of God to one's own soul, the Bible, also by the deepest understanding itself.

Therefore, considering the Evangelical-Lutheran Church today, by Christianity, there is only one thing to conclude with: it holds STRENGTH and so much so too, honouring St. Peter, the Rock of Faith, higher/highest too, equal to the honours that St. Peter evidently receives by the Catholic Church.

(Please follow the Bible primarily, and with heart and soul too. Respects.)

The Slipstream Argument - The requirements to Agnosticism increase...

One of the original formulations:

I'd like to inform you that, over the Pascal's Wager, now by new modal considerations, rather than to exist or not, that the Agnostics are logically impelled, by "ethics, meaning, (perh. sec.->) definition of God, and entailment of Heaven" to consider God, that is, they now enter first these 4 necessary entities (or else leaving Agnosticism altogether) before considering the reality of exactly God. This constitutes a refinement from earlier!

The Slipstream Argument vs. Pascal's Wager

Wikipedia presents Pascal's Wager in this way:

"It posits that humans all bet with their lives either that God exists or does not exist. Given the possibility that God actually does exist and assuming the infinite gain or loss associated with belief in God or with unbelief, a rational person should live as though God exists and seek to believe in God. If God does not actually exist, such a person will have only a finite loss (some pleasures, luxury, etc.).[1]"

The Slipstream Argument, however, REQUIRES the wondering agnostic to assume seriously the 4 (Christian/variations for other religions) constituents, such as Meaning, Description of God, Ethics (10 Commandments) and the Entailment of Heaven "into personal data-set". Without these, and you can check on Agnostic's honesty, the "emotional" Agnostic can easily be dismissed. This is a HARDER consideration of the Existence of God than Pascal' Wager and also takes higher position into eternity.

Pascal's Wager has formerly been listed under Atheism because of the nature of gambling with God's existence and "showing doubt in God" in case one dares to utter the thought. "Now, my good person, you DOUBT in God...? I would never doubt in God...! BANG!" (Out of church too?)

Url: http://en.wikipedia.orhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_Wager.

Let's assume there are 4 main ways to God's possible existence:

Ethics (10 commandments)
Meaning (to Heaven by moral life, etc)
Definition of God ("God is spirit")
Definition of Heaven (A place of perfect goodness etc.)
Then you need to live these 4 main ways to God before you start to doubt God's existence.

Before this, one has had the opportunity to start to doubt God right away, but this (short) text tells us that the Agnostics have requirements to fulfill before they get the credible opportunity to put God's existence into question.

If the Agnostics just start to doubt God's existence right away, they haven't made the serious attempt in trying to believe in God/God's existence at all, according to some.

Further, the friendly questions to the Agnostic... First, the Agnostic speaks...

We speculate on hypothetical discussions. Maybe the Agnostic's standpoint is like this:

Agnostic: "I've considered the question of God and found that I'm in doubt. I've gone through all the well-known arguments for God and I find something there that's appealing, but I'm not ready to say that I definitely believe in God. No. On the other hand, I lack being convinced by the arguments against the existence of God because I don't dare to take on a cold, dead World. It just lacks the life I experience. So Atheism isn't for me either."

However, in my line of thought, the nature of the questions to the Agnostic may take on a different nature. Rather than discussing the various arguments for and against the existence of God, the Believer may ask kinds of the following questions:

Believer to the Agnostic: "How do you experience religion? What do you think of ethics? The 10 Commandments and the Golden Rule (other ethics for other religions, Torah, whatever)? Do you try to live the ethical life or do you live it? How do you perceive God (or Brahman, Yahweh, Allah, Buddha etc.)? How do you imagine God exists? In us? Outside us? In a God-Universe, by God self? How do you perceive Heaven (or other for other religions)? Would you like to go to Heaven? Do you fear Hell? What is your thought of the soul? Do you care for it? Do you find meaning in religion (Christianity, Judaism, Islam, etc.)? Do you long for the religious salvation?" And so on.

Note: First written to Wikipedia, YouTube in October, 2012, and other places because it probably remains small for the World as a whole when most people are to enter Religion or Atheism/Ignorance straight. Though, it may well be that "The Slipstream Argument" enters eternity.

Note2: The slipstream is found in nature, both aquatically and aeronautically.

Friday, 26 July 2013

World History and Time - The Names, The Achievements...

There are some names which are more cool than others and as usual I have my favourites, given World History and Time, 4 names:

Thomas Aquinas (1225 - 1274)
Immanuel Kant (1724 - 1804)
Søren Kierkegaard (1813 - 1855)
Karl Popper (1902 - 1994)

to start...

Who else? Let me think about it and why don't you make your own list too? We can use a number of histories and other, such as the Nobel Prizes, all combined.

:-)


(I don't bother to make a negative list.)

New Theory for the Rise of Adolf Hitler - Letter to the Colleagues

Dear Researchers of the World, Adolf Hitler Researchers and Others

There may be news for the Adolf Hitler Research for how the ugly things started to happen. As usual, I write to you in the hope that you like it, that you find it useful, with 5 contributions to Mensa (DE), setting me at 190+.This is a tip, an informal message.

New Theory for the Rise of Adolf Hitler

Adolf Hitler research - Causes to his rise: After much investigation into human nature, especially lying, and psychiatric issues, mSomatism too, I find that Adolf Hitler may have come to power mainly out of 2 causes:

1. The lack of personal weapons in the German population. I bet with Wild Wild West, that most U. S. Americans would have one or more personal weapons at this point, also rifles (lever action incl.). 

2. There would be the special rule in navel-gazing Germany (we're BIG, 40-50 millions, whatever) that would allow anybody who could gather a larger mass of people and claim power by this gathering, that he (man dominant, sorry women) would win Germany and become the leader of the nation.

Extra: at the same time, big Germany has its many affiliations elsewhere, also suppressed by the settlement with France that costed heavily. That they aired thoughts with the U. S. Americans, still with their weaponry and good at it too. Excited with some approval, the Germans begin to pick up on crazy ideas, still due to the lack of personal weapons in their population, allowing much insanity to happen, under under-paid police. So the Germans report back to homeland from New York, with only the crazy ideas, "because only these ideas work with us, or that, "you corrupt Germans... well, well, you can talk to them", while massive people showed up with an ever-idiot A. Hitler "because he was friend with everybody".

So with the failure to reason behind the personal weapons of many, and consequently without the power to assassinate the crazy people too, Adolf Hitler takes power and coarse political rhetoric takes hold, "the Jews are to blame", plus others, "we're the best in the World", "we are HUGE, we take over the World", or whatever.

Conclusion: not only corrupt forces like that. No, the lack of personal weapons has made the German people inclined toward the corrupt mind, and that other factors made this inclination/disposition cascade/gather force so for Germany to make many idiot-mistakes, many that lead to dubious invitations, to fx. Henry Ford and others, and set crazy-Nazi-Germany ready for WAR! Insanity evidently most clear! Agree?

Before you "send this out": I have made "Financial Radicalism" and "Tri-Sturm-S", plus a bit.

Yours sincerely,
L. F. Olsnes-Lea

(Norway)


Hitler Research - Warning!

Given the new research on Hitler by the period between World War I and World War II, I can safely state that to object to other people's security "is to lick Hitler's a*s most intensely" and he can't be known for cleanliness along with his taste for carnage/carnal taste.

To ending up intensely doing something under Hitler's a*s may be considered a considerable loss of intellectuality! You may very well be considered to have no say in the World at all. Alternative H*ll/purgatory?

PS (outside letter more): The letter must be considered sent to the UN with strong encouragement for arming the World populations to greatest degree, in order to live up own UDHR, especially, Article 3. The right to (decent) life... (This is not entirely what the article says.) - 

http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/ - "Article 3. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person."! Hurry! Make haste! (For progress to happen and severe cases of people being treated... not fairly...)

Hitler is not a Christian. The reading of Christian Dube, a German, who has written about Hitler's speeches in the most linguistically analytical way!

Reasoning:
Report on Hitler's Speeches by Christian Dube, (loosely, excuse me) The Religious Language in Adolf Hitler's Speeches

While Hitler is good in using God (even in terms of this "white" by "telepathy" or thereof), I object to Hitler being religious on these grounds:

His deluded use of God (Gott) 41 - 11 positive.

Other, selected:
The Bible, only in 1940, 5 counts. (Bibel)
Christianity, only in 1935 and 1937, 5 + 1 respectively (Christentum)
Christian, only in 1935, 1939, 1940, 2 + 1 + 2, only (christlich)
...
No, I only believe in devotion to the Superhuman Nazi and that the "white" bankvaults to be ready to consume "idiot" human and lay down flat with animal nature, New York, possibly, receiving "Auschwitz" ready for "waste". Utter crazy Nazi-Germany readified!

I am capable of reading the most advanced and sophisticated German now. There is no room!

Somehow, the Hindenburg airship has become a motivator for all sorts connected to pre-World-War II !

Other striking words: heiligen, Heiligkeit, Katholik/en, katholisch, kirchlich, Protestant/en, Reformation (Rev. M. Luther), theologisch... ! No Abraham's people possible for Hitler. He sacrifices EVERYTHING, with his deluded words to his Reich-followers!

Himmel must also in. 1 count, 1940.

Besides, Under Hitler and under Unemployment here on my blog.

I may be entitled to have solved ALL Critical Theory by a suggested solution to A. Hitler's way to power and Nazi-Germany as read about in history books.

So I do this NOW! (And by this contribution, I'm awarded quite a bit of honour in European history of thinking!) Thanks for the attention.

I remind people of the awful (European) shame that's implied by failure to act in this context. Much with Sir Neville Chamberlain and his successor, WE NEED TO ACT WITH CLARITY OF LEADERSHIP AND BROADLY, much like in the early days of Labour movement, i.e., the need for mobilisation of the military to equip the people toward Human Rights, universally, for being able to present character to other countries as well.

Other: I may d*mn well accept 100 % Un-employment if logcis fail to take hold/get to the relevant heads!

Moving the society into action for getting all people equipped toward Human Rights (expressed as Universal Agenda by UN, given the UDHR), we have 3 options:

1. Getting the army mobilised directly, securing the equipment to the population.

2. Using the Labour and Employer organisations in shoving the army into action by mass-shutdown of production, giving the national assembly the order to get it done, using the army or not, in "war"-general sense, all people into the mix.

3. Labour and Employer again, but this time by mass-demonstrations and mass-"bombardment" to the Internet message groups, email lists, all and all, leading to the same result as above.

Equipment: yes, minimally 1 pistol/revolver per home, + optional non-lethal weapons, 2 or 1 only, pepperspray or tazer.

This text is implying a further general availability to the people for rifles, shotguns, combi-rifles, revolvers, pistols, peppersprays, tazers and stun-guns by weapons/sports shops.

The Question of Personal Weapon and Personal Security - UDHR Article 3

There's a question to NRA (National Rifles Association) if they are supporting the World in acquiring weapons for all, making it law or making it a Right in their nation...

I expect them to give an affirmative and that they are therefore in-line with the State Department. I want to write this as a heads-up for UN and most/all other nations in expecting a given behaviour from USA in aftermath of "Financial Radicalism" charges to Nazi-Germany, in making their efforts to improve the World, also in terms of humanism/human rights/humanistic progress.

So it goes:
* U. S. (American) State Department gives its public statement for the normative personal weapons rights to everywhere in the World
* So does the NRA.
* So does the UN.
* And Pentagon plays with it, displaying the use of the personal weapon.

This is inline with the sales, Worldwide, of the non-lethal weapons. That USA owes us, outside its nation, these efforts, until we too have achieved it, as far as possible.

In short, I WANT/RECOMMEND MUCH CAMPAIGNING for all and everywhere, having suggested the (mobilised) army to take part, over a 14 days period. Remember that this is about the decent family life for everyone. If not decent families, then life everywhere maybe broken DOWN!

Note: That to mention the (central) Article 3 of the UDHR doesn't necessarily entail only one article. No, the consequences are thought to influence, critically or not, many/all the others.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Rifle_Association, note on singular vs. text above.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Department.

This also connects with explanations of universal duties from and to one-another and in being human one-self and bringing this humanity to others as well, from old, "making other people able to _hold_ the Bible" themselves too"!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_values.

Please, remember the important Universality Principle of Ethics.

The Case for USA above Europe and Everywhere Else

1. Industry production (by reliability also) is high in USA, entailing healthy, functional people with beliefs in their society.

2. I understand the corrupt minds very well and how the guilt from failure to duties abroad influxes into USA on the "macro-scale".

3. USA has now carried out a large social welfare reform gently moved in, to remove much contradiction inside its nation in terms of Human Rights. Importantly too, the legal system ... allowing the citizens autonomy and initiative to react to deeply upsetting criminial scenes in the public and not in particular fear either to tip the police.

Sub-point ("reiteration"): Insecurity (by physical insecurity, "a door open") as insistence to the neighbour, universally, can have dire, negative consequences.

3. Importantly too, their legal system has higher standing in terms of crime, allowing the citizens autonomy and initiative to react to deeply upsetting criminial scenes in the public and not in particular fear either to tip the police and for deeper intuitions of decency, dignity and human worth (than in Europe, elsewhere, hence the "necessity" of "meatshops", crime you can't talk about, the "necessity" of torture, etc.).

To cut the usual "smile of idiocy" from European thinking, that the Universality Principle of Ethics as safety-webbing is easily DESTROYED if one sits there trying to say that the Principle and Insecurity to the neighbour (with a possible disposition of acceptance by torture to the neighbour) by refusing to accept the personal weapons (max. 5?) and non-lethal weapons to ALL, denying these bloated psychiatrists these aloof statements over sanity as THEY have allowed "vampires to walk in broad daylight", like "educated torturers" and serial-killers, 10 or more!

The academic usual at the end: Instantly, I submit to the Objectivity and more powerful arguments if they exist as well as the best data-sets to these (academic) matters of political science/legal forensics.

The court issues: theology and psychiatry are traditionally alike banned from the courts in terms of presenting Legal Objectivity. They are only, especially psychiatry now, allowed to enter for testifying as experts to a given (narrow) aspect.

In addition, legal blindness is the Cardinal Sin that condemns either of the acting parties of the court, including the judge. (The judge is continuously under the duty to not become legally blind, i.e., corrupt or "insane".)

Corruption analysis - given the fact that the population lacks (personal) weapons, also the non-lethal, the lack of legal system journalism/crime journalism (CNN does in fact have a "Justice"-section under its U.S. edition) and use of threats against the population to extended degrees, widely and deeply. Then the subconscious aspects by this, assessed by non-carnivore-psychologists, the ethical assessments to how much mental burden this implies.

Let us say that the lawyers'/barristers' is "governing" prior to this analysis of corruption in the World as premise. We get:

1. Lawyers/barristers (repr. The Lawyers Association, see special English name)
- who are:
the lawyers/barristers
judges (also the divide between former police-lawyers vs. the barristers/(U.S.) lawyers of finances/banking)

2. The police (w/ the police lawyers)
- who are:
The police (3 years or less of college education)
The prison guards, the prison authorities (same)
The customs (same)
Scotland Yard/FBI/Equivalent
The internal affairs/Special affairs for police corruption/misconduct
The finances authorities
The credit exchange authorities
The data-information authorities
Postal- and tele-communication authorities

3. The military - parts or much people, unknown

4. The physicians association - parts or much people, unknown

Legal blindness defined: in the courts, psychiatrists/psychologists and theologians, please, make the confirmation with history books (for yourself to be convinced, straight), are not to make any particular judgment on matters of right and wrong, legally. They are held outside entirely, down to being ordinary people for this aspect. So the truth is that "legal blindness" has its own special standing in the courts for making the correct ruling, the dutiful parties, first and foremost, judge and two lawyers/barristers. Psychiatrists/psychologists and theologians are only called in for expert statements/assessments/verdicts and that this is told to you given very special considerations over "power in the courts" for the benefit of the entire population it serves.

So when this is being read, this must be considered to relate to a special type of autocracy-/despotism-rule that results from POWER-FIXATED (first and foremost in physical sense - brutal violence, torture, weapons, threats, everything) people who act in what most people name a democracy, given the media reports "of shining weather and happy faces"!

So for the two dots in history, span or not, given the pan-out, you can figure out the very time-relation yourself, the French state-terrorism and the rise of A. Hitler to POWER!

Note that Europe has no particular weapons history for the weapons in its general population after the swords and spears have been put on the heap. Especially for Germany, this must present itself absolutely... serious? That they have special incentives for acting unless utter shame? Thus, I may be correct, right?

While we're waiting to stand up _by_ the gun, here's the "Under the gun" by The Sisters of Mercy as inspiration. - "To fire at will...!"

All political attempts man_dated for as appropriate!

One version:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XozUZF3ml5w - Ehh, good blood?

Regarding Elie Wiezel, all respects, in Aftenposten, 2014-01-27, also being of North European descent through several hundred years (esp. 1900 – 1946 and Nuremberg), I’ll choose instead the more factual route for now by “USA Theory”, so to speak, computer-simulating (by USA data-set, inviting both mathematicians, Applied Mathematics and Wolfram, the program) a possible other destiny for our uneducated Hitler, setting necessary Kripke lines by 1925 and 1933 up to 1939.

(Holding of course on to two others, the non-lethal weapons and the neuro-meters, unsettling to read L. Ron Hubbard’s “0 – 8 The Basics” and the Ethics tone scale!)

By my investigations into the corrupt minds:
The main sentiment for "Weapons to the Population" is that it is easier "to take a bullet" than to endure (threats of) torture!
Implicitly then, by these weapons, the instances of torture are (significantly) reduced!
This is inline with Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International in "Stopping the torture"!

Mind you also how torture plays a bigger part in both generating widespread mental burdens by only one instance and how torture "helps" generating the corrupt minds, also in being a significant threat (to family life).

The "Hitler Direction" is the direct, overhanging threat to the World yesterday, today, tomorrow and until we have finished it off by its existence!

Over the Perfect Employment in the World and the Story of Hitler (more...)

By S5 modality logics, one CORRUPT decision leads to "5 others", necessarily the monster arises...! (In God's name...)

Here on the Blog, these together:
What is Written...: Against Unemployment
What is Written...: New Theory for the Rise of Adolf Hitler - Letter to the Colleagues
What is Written...: Psychiatry and the Modified Somatist Position
What is Written...: The 100% Society - A Matter of Political Science

Sunday, 21 July 2013

The Human Being of Law - The Legal Duties of the Future

One should remember that the divide between right and wrong, is by some people considered the start of civilisation and that this effort stands on top of history that extends more than 2000 years of human thought and anguish for the missing steps up here. As this is noted, we start:
1. There should be no holes in a good system of legal practice/legislation system.

2. The laws are absolute and they can't be reasonably dodged. This point is supported by point 1.

3. (if nec.) The laws are complete and describe only objective circumstances (pertaining to HDM, of the science, and quality of evidence) and most certainly only real life.

4. Legislation is on top. The courts are nr. 2 and the Police are nr. 3. There are various security concerns to this. I think the Police need clear rules/procedures as they do their work. I think the Judges only need to set a precedent if the Legislative Assembly (National Parliament) feigns its duties. So I want/hold a theory for a sharp and pro-active Legislative Body and "Judges only to the rescue", acting secondarily so to speak.

Just in case of interest, I find Antonin Scalia's Originalist position compatible with a "Legislationist" position. Thus I pay respect to forming laws "in the spirit of the Book of Laws (fx. Norges Lover)". Or when you sit there writing, that you are "in a spirit of the Law". This should be the beginning bricks for securing best-practice legal work.

You should note my point on Gödel, the German logician, in Phil. Notes, that this text  leaves no room. There will be no excuses if the future is properly cared for.

Also take note on the meditative state for making laws. Legislation happens at most meditative state, down to the Judges (by the heat of the Trial and direct Justice down further to Police under fire, so to speak). Thus, this comes natural.

I must add that Europe can do well with its own Courts reporting (by example of Nancy Grace) and Justice section on CNN U.S. American edition and a Situation Room type of Legal Practice reporting (in media where there is "interest"). I welcome a more aware and active Legal Practice reporting in Europe. Also in the Pan-European sense (to close some holes for the dubious parts of the World)...

I believe it has been Clarence Thomas who has uttered the words on an interview with CBS 60 Minutes that "you need legislation to make verdicts". Consequently, I have the "Legislationist" position from him, but I'm uncertain if it is he who says the words or somebody else because a fair amount of time has passed since then.

When I write "Absolutist", I mean of course that there should be (normativity) little or no room for "interpretation". Burglary is thus burglary and rape, even for the sexist or crazy, is still the rape. The victim can never be the burglar oneself and the victim can't either be the rapist oneself. Some people are blind to this, they fail to make proper distinctions of words or situations or whatever. I also think that today's systems across the world seeks brevity of law as description of law on a rather unfounded basis. Therefore, I can imagine a more complete description to go with the law as it's delivered from the Legislative Assembly. Fx. in case it's needed, a better description can be given as a secondary compilation to the laws by corresponding documents to the collection of laws where these are needed. A law concerning The Protection of Private Information, by the privacy laws, as fx. one's private address can be given a better description until it reaches a level of descriptive completeness, possibly adding 1, 2 or 3 pages.

Even if we speak of filming for the press, there is still no valid objection to having this filmed by Court's Archiving Services. Thus, Courts would have the pressure to do the job right and appeals could become much more clear. Corruption could also get rooted out much faster and idiot judges would never be allowed. But corruption to the archiving system makes every problem return again. Extra efforts should be made to secure system for this, that doesn't fall to crime/corruption.

A possible interpretation by myself of the original 9th Amendment from the Constitution of USA:
How the laws are numbered/organised shall not be construed in such a way that people are denied or disparaged the protection of law, because they, secondarily, the people (or their representing lawyers, of old), fail to identify them, impliedly, of these laws that are, of course, represented by we, the people! Thus the protection by law is absolute.

This relates to the Science of Jurisdiction/Law and Philosophy of Law.
As soon as the letter of the Laws is broken, the rights for absolute privacy fall away by definition and the perpetrator(s) fall(s) into the category of possible persecution (by law enforcement, first and foremost).

Remember still, though, that Law Enforcement has to obtain evidence in a legal manner, that is, after reports have been filed... or after a sting operation we managed to... You know where this is going.

Judges, especially of the lower courts may be doing mistakes too. Therefore, the trust put in them by their colleagues higher up may be deeply misplaced. As the judges of the lower courts are seen as more or less error-free, expecting the system to accommodate for mistakes, that is, to correct them (by the appeal system), the whole system gets corrupted. This may be the cumulative effects we live with today! Not only the courts are a problem, but the police, special interests Laws by lobbying groups, by companies or else and so on! This makes it definite that there is room for a lot of improvement, by system and so on.

An inevitable list of modern notions to (every) Philosophy of Law, I introduce to you:

1. I've made a novel move in terms of describing the real and hard criminal nature of "monkey business", in conjunction with mSomatism, that is, "monkey business", of "energy problem", as fixation or modus operandi, from the lunatic is here addressed specifically.

2. I've suggested a national assembly approved official commentary that is to support the courts and reduce the amounts of precedents, so also as to diminish their mistaken authority throughout the World, even if they have served us to some good extent in the past. Germany is explicitly on the move in this respect.

3. I've described the definitive relations between the national assembly, the courts, and the police forces, so as to make the lines of duty more clear and to reduce any illusion of "self-made-policies" in that auto-generated sense. This is really /the/ policies killer, withholding the far more serious "police instructions", fx.

4. I've made Objective Ethics including the crucial 4 methods of lie-detection to be used, potentially, at the same time, inside the police "interrogation room"/"questioning room". These are, of course, (f)MRI, "a swim hat of sensors", voice-stress analyzer, mimicry, including eye-dialation, and polygraph-testing, the reaction of body to nervousness in exuding sweat, essentially.

5. I have, together with others, suggested to film all cases in the courts so as to heavily reduce poor judge performance in the long run and to definitely place the possibilities for democratic control well within the proper hands of democratic care-takers! So that the court-archives will take on the most definite character and leave no doubt how the case has run. Some set-ups may even contain one or more of these 4 methods above.

This should speak well for me in demolishing any legal Hilbert's program! (Hilbert for insiders.)

The difference between de jure legal person/human being of law is key in this text, as should be clear to all, i.e., the companies, like Coca-Cola, with the company registry numbers to go, in Norway given by www.brreg.no. On the contrary, with insights to go, I am establishing The Human Being of Law for everybody, that is, I establish the legal guarantee (in theory, stiffening the duties for lawyers and others considerably) for seeing through human beings as individuals and this is novel in legal theory, that of course, is subdued by my adversaries here and there on planet Earth, so plainly withholding the points by lying/"pro-active ignorance"!

The plain de jure human being of law, like the Coca-Cola company (Norw. comp. registry, www.brreg.no ): well, well, it relates to this, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_facto_corporation_and_corporation_by_estoppel.
The Human Being of Law (that I'm writing about), leading up to the burning of "tons" of precedents in USA: http://whatiswritten777.blogspot.no/2011/09/opinions-on-philosophy-of-law-maybe-bit.html.

Term: person
n. 1) a human being. 2) a corporation treated as having the rights and obligations of a person. Counties and cities can be treated as a person in the same manner as a corporation. However, corporations, counties and cities cannot have the emotions of humans such as malice, and therefore are not liable for punitive damages unless there is a statute authorizing the award of punitive damages.
See also: corporation party - from http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=1516.
I add the Norwegian terms just for the possibility of misinterpretation to become zero. There is also a slight development of language that I'd like to address:
Juridisk person.
Fysisk person.
(Issuing this comes from the Norwegian legal separation of "physical person" (NO: fysisk person), how an ordinary person is addressed in the Norwegian legal system. On the other hand, companies are addressed as "legal person" or "legal human being" and I happen to think that there's some convention for this "here or there" in Europe, perhaps also in USA, despite my lack of legal nomenclature.)

Given my position by mSomatism, I see no other choice than to commit all citizens to have a pistol/revolver for personal security so that human nature can continue to progress (faster/more steadily) in order to be better human beings, i.e., the biggest challenge in the World today is to make human kind a better human kind and it will probably also take more death penalties in order to happen.

There is no need for pause for when to make these politics to have effect, that is, please, get it into life as soon as possible.

For the legal systems to progress further from this year, 2013, as the weapons enter, so goes the death penalty in too, Worldwide, "because the advocates for the abolition of the death penalty have lied most blatantly!"

Most importantly: this text approves "weapons to all citizens" for the next 50 years most certainly, and minimally, under The Human Being of Law, that I hold as name, because I have created it, it belongs to my name as my contribution to the World (of intellectuality).

Practical example for the common societies:

On Copyrights and APIs (from some time ago),
I better make a comment on a verdict some time ago on copyrights and APIs.
First of all, I think there is a general note on novelty. A copyright is bought and sold on appeal, on attractiveness, on effort.
Secondly, there are formal requirements that demand that you have made it, you are the maker/creator of a particular copyright (other circumstances may obtain under reasonable agreement between some parties).
Thirdly, let the market test whether a person has been invited to make,

Start
Go www.google.com/search
Do

has something to show for or not. Either way, any person bringing something "to the market", has an undeniable right to say that this given person actually has accomplished this, no matter how small. A smaller consideration is whether this is an inside invitation from fx. Google to this person to make this come true, i.e., is this some kind of "fixed"/"hypothetical" problem? "Have they invited problems to the table?"

Conclusion must be that copyright is still, generally, impossible to question and that the copyright-creators need to show for the work they've completed and want to bring to the market. The buyers or users need to wait for (proper) availability.

Some practical implications for the highest legal matters, the military and the intelligence services:

A slight note on US story of surveillance by BBC: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-22820711. That the World outside USA should fiercely/openly report US demands for intel outside own legal domain and that we should demand that the US servers are to be protected for "outside-US citizens" as well as US citizens in having the same (business) rights as US citizens on *US soil*, that invokes/includes a long-standing tradition. USA has no evident rights to claim full invasion of privacy against foreigners on US soil! This destroys some military ill-founded conceptions with them!

Secondly, the "after-Echelon" efforts by Microsoft and others should be demanded to gain a new transparent status such that the business standards are well kept again outside sinister-idiot-(military)-scheming for "greed" and "power", by (former) Financial Radicalism.

Advice to the public: You can get good lessons from Court TV (Nancy Grace) and various interviews from your or U.S. American Supreme Court Members by 60 Minutes. General media awareness isn't so bad either...

Notes:
1. However, as a crime (letter of the Laws...) has taken place, everyone has either the duty or possibility to file a report to the police about their "suspicions"/sightings/what they've witnessed!
2. I'm inspired by Nancy Grace and we may share some "context" here.
3. This text is repeated so that it becomes more clear to people around the World. It also holds great importance to all of humanity and may imply a historical shift in near future.
4. On the (U. S.) American Constitution - The Ninth Amendment
That my work in it has effectuated: The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage the full extent of these to the  people's benefits. See specific text for best wording (above, else).
5. I'm still the holder of "The Human Being of Law" and that I know this is worthy for the Nobel Prize of Literature or the Peace Prize in the extended sense, people relying on the future of humanity.
6. I insist on mathematical union between Jurisprudence and Philosophy of Law as much as Philosophy of Mathematics and Mathematical Philosophy! You may add Physics Philosophy and Philosophy of Physics to this as well!

References:
The header of it says: Opinions on Gödel's Theorems of Incompleteness and Possibly Tarski and link is (one of them): http://whatiswritten777.blogspot.com/2011/08/philosophical-notes-of-intellectual.html.

--------------------------

A sub-note to The Human Being of Law is this, as matter of underlying support, given the complexity of the nature of human being and much ground to improve on, legally:

[Text to the attacks on "The Stranger": ]

Additional Considerations to the "Perfect Lovers Slash Perfect Strangers", also known as "Perfect Strangers" by Deep Purple.

Under John Lennon's Imagine still, a sharing of story between two friends occur, of the dangers of the World and how to solve them, specifically the ones described by "The Stranger" by Camus. At the time of writing this could have been under "Hey Jude", Beatles, too, but this reference has been beyond me at the time.

The story we speak of is a loose version of the text to follow, Perfect Lovers / Perfect Strangers (not homosexual here, but rather in the sense of two male friends who may happen to double-date time and again, i.e., perfect lovers). With notions of "flow psychology", not entirely described as flow psychology at the time and feeling a great rush of history reading, "of flying on oceans of time", I write:

[No room (for them)/"instant"] Full organs, The Stranger isn't the Bible. Full guitars blow! [Maximum power.]

The text without the vocalisation of the above, but there by assumptions.

The text,
[Text, ending with vocal "end-signature": Perfect lovers slash perfect strangers]
After text, it should be noted that as a friend to friend "trick", in finding a friend to stay with, one is asked to consider "Perfect Lovers slash Perfect Strangers" as a slider that one seeks to improve, at least as a matter between oneself and the other person.

"Go!" ("The Stranger" no more?)

A note on psychology, with "Don't talk to strangers", Karl Marx forgets that estrangement from the means of production, fails the higher target of ensuring non-estrangement of human kind, that McCarthyism in ousting communism succeeds in three, 3, targets, the human rights, the democracy and the psychology to go, human being to human being. It's complex to be find the best line for human beings and the story of the human being, from Homo Erectus to Homo Sapiens extend some 200 000 years by loose memory. Check yourself, please.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZ_kez7WVUU.

Marked by Christianity, McCarthyism wins through: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_McCarthy, USA withholding both Religion and personal weaponry while ousting Communism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_being.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Stranger_(novel).

The French are now up to the arms in Pierre Duhem and Christianity and Family, Monarchy and France, while "Abolition" has to leave the scene for the next 100 years at least, by my own estimate. Death penalty, by Payment Slips Laws (slip laws) and common-sense punishment of criminals, should be in everywhere, for the same 100 years, give or take some.

France going at its matters, USA and World (France incl.) may take on a new kind of corruption fighting by McCarthyism 2.0, a much more refined McCarthyism that has "the right people with it", like the broader, transparent set-ups of "Citizens' Commissions of Law and Order" and wide public coverage (avoiding hysteria and foul play at the same time).

The World is encumbered by many issues, but with USA at a headstart, I've encourage EU, China and Japan to rush the same way too, leaving the bug(g)s (as in sandbogs) of corruption behind.

This text only speaks for the rare or moderate uses of the death penalty.

There is no neck-over-head pro-death penalty from myself to this, The Human Being of Law, that also has to comply with "Accordance-Realism-Pragmatism-Utopianism" (ehhh... Utopianism in the scope of 200+ years) of Political Theory.

The Human Being of Law - Definition

The use of "The Human Being of Law" in this context refers to an ideal of the human being and the fact that this particular achievement does the following: it represents "The Theoretical Legal Guarantee for Being the Human Being" in such terms that now Rule of Law and the legal systems will always provide the reach for achieving the best of human kind in terms of the ideal of The Human Being, of Humanity, and that this is as big as it's possible to get in Science of Law, the Legal Sciences!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctor_of_the_Science_of_Law.
Doctor of law

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/jurisprudence: From the Latin term juris prudentia, which means "the study, knowledge, or science of law"; in the United States, more broadly associated with the philosophy of law.

Legal philosophy has many branches, with four types being the most common. The most prevalent form of jurisprudence seeks to analyze, explain, classify, and criticize entire bodies of law, ranging from contract to tort to Constitutional Law. Legal encyclopedias, law reviews, and law school textbooks frequently contain this type of jurisprudential scholarship.

The second type of jurisprudence compares and contrasts law with other fields of knowledge such as literature, economics, religion, and the social sciences. The purpose of this type of study is to enlighten each field of knowledge by sharing insights that have proven to be important in advancing essential features of the compared discipline.

The third type of jurisprudence raises fundamental questions about the law itself. These questions seek to reveal the historical, moral, and cultural underpinnings of a particular legal concept. The Common Law (1881), written by oliver wendell holmes jr., is a well-known example of this type of jurisprudence. It traces the evolution of civil and criminal responsibility from undeveloped societies where liability for injuries was based on subjective notions of revenge, to modern societies where liability is based on objective notions of reasonableness.

The fourth and fastest-growing body of jurisprudence focuses on even more abstract questions, including, What is law? How does a trial or appellate court judge decide a case? Is a judge similar to a mathematician or a scientist applying autonomous and determinate rules and principles? Or is a judge more like a legislator who simply decides a case in favor of the most politically preferable outcome? Must a judge base a decision only on the written rules and regulations that have been enacted by the government? Or may a judge also be influenced by unwritten principles derived from theology, moral philosophy, and historical practice?

Four schools of jurisprudence have attempted to answer these questions: formalism proposes that law is a science; realism holds that law is just another name for politics; Positivism suggests that law must be confined to the written rules and regulations enacted or recognized by the government; and naturalism maintains that the law must reflect eternal principles of justice and morality that exist independent of governmental recognition.

legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com

Mine: Formalist!

Formalism is by this realised by conventions of linguistic science and the Conventionalism of Poincare. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conventionalism.

See for instance Formalism by Martin Stone in The Oxford Handbook of Jurisprudence & Philosophy of Law by J. Coleman and S. Shapiro, OUP, 2002, repr. 2004.

My "Human Being" presides over these notions from history describing human as animals. As a start for exposing this literature, I've chosen to start with Aristotle's Politics where humans are being described as political animals in what I see as the start of a plan to make a structure for the transition of humans from animalistic humans to human beings. Aristotle lives in 384 to 322 BCE in (Ancient) Greece.

Recommendation, The Human Being of Law:

I recommend that the people who go away "in" suicide can do so with legal silence, i.e., the laws concerning the suicide victims themselves must be erased/abolished for not being valid anymore (or enter legal sleep).

This follows the logic "after the Bible" so to speak, that a person is either admitted "in" to "herb" euthanasia/suicide or offered credible/definite protection against the attacks on this person's belief (in God) or adviced to seek suicide elsewhere "with blessings to go", so as to not condemn anyone "with a heart of malice or any else thereof".

The Legal Context:
The laws are abolished/erased by traditional approach as 1st step. Then the next steps are to make the case for more formal euthanasia/social code suicides, in dignity, by understanding the hardship some people go through and leaving life in escaping it all, as should be plain, death being the highest price to pay (and not for these "psychopaths" to seek torture in full before the last breath on Earth).

The Religious context:
In a sense, this above text provides a 3-Options respectful approach to people of (deep) despair, one of which is most desirable, to be able to protect the fellow human being of religious faith ...foremost.

Thus, at least for a start, this person of despair is requested to seek a person (inside Church) worth of trust.

Formalism as project toward book can be given this title:
Formalism - in Being Realist - Science Abiding
(inside book:) in tribulating the success of Formalism!

"Inner note": Formalism is to be known publicly:
Formalism - in Being Realist - Science Abiding
(inside book:) in tribulating the success of Formalism!

Formalism admits NO deficiencies to other aspects of Jurisprudence and Phil. of Law.

"In citing the Martin Stone article of Formalism by Oxford Handbook, as above/former."

The Human Being of Law
- Formalism (strongest - note) has formerly "won" the Human Rights, UDHR and ECHR alike, also to service globally! Please, see reference with the UN.

Philosophy of Law: Legal Reasoning Closure Principle Philosopher, legal reasoning, being valid, has to comply with logical entailment and that this is minimally the claim that it does, apart from the (many book) examples that it does. (This is only a formal note, not the text for lawyers to actually having to sit and make these logical texts themselves, i.e., to burden them with much extra work.)

(This is a new position to be known in the World, as with Accordance Realism-Pragmatism-Utopian.)

In addition, time in logics can be solved like this:
Predicate logic,
UoD
20:20 PM, 2013-09-09: Km (person m is suspected to have committed a murder)
20:20 [...]: Lm (person m after the time of murder)
20:20 [...]: Bm (person m before the time of the murder)
so on...
Sentential logic,
UoD
20:20 PM, 2013-09-09: K (person m is suspected to have committed a murder)
20:20 [...]: L (person m after the time of murder)
20:20 [...]: B (person m before the time of the murder)
so on...

(Again, predicate logic is a bit more powerful...)

Additionally, you can check up various time-logics yourself, sentential, predicate, modal...

Frame logics for time, doing it properly/by stiff structure, the logical schema is presented by the below,

UoD: Everything (by default) for all frames/both frames.
t(1):
t(2):
t(x, as many as needed...)
[The declared list, general/definite, i.e., by predicates x and singular r, s, t, u, all that's needed from a to u, as usual.]

Argument, Frame 1 - Code: Fx. the murder, time so and so, including year, possibly.
t(1): [time reiterated for orderliness]
[Under UoD from above, the deduction and worded outline proceed.]

Argument, Frame 2 - Code: Fx. time elapsing after, time so and so, including year, possibly.
t(2): [time reiterated for orderliness]
[Under UoD from above, the deduction and worded outline proceed.]

Argument, Frame X - Code: Fx. time all else, time so and so, including year, possibly, all legal reasoning entailed, physics reasoning for physics, etc. ["Heh-heh-heh", also for the political attempt]
t(X): [time reiterated for orderliness]
[Under UoD from above, the deduction and worded outline proceed.]

Warning!
To think that "any legal system walks", failing the Police Act and police instructions in rife manners, approving every state crime and every criminal, prompts this:
"The condition of our legal system has coerced me into these killings. I'm without guilt. You are the atrocity, preventing everyone their rightful life!"

To say that the use of the word "torture", people to people, makes this only worse because "in one sense or thousands", the use of torture, secretly, moving in the bling of academic title after is d*mn FACT, a mere rope "as passion with the twisted mind looking for perfect evil"!

There is a worsening fact too now that the Human Being of Law has been established, making these failures to duties and lawful behaviour most evident!

"That violations of my Human Rights, Articles [xyz], UDHR/ECHR..."

The Legal Systems of the World - The "Developed" Countries

The definition of a legal system that defeats itself is one that promotes crime as acceptable/"allows crime openly" among the general population.

Because states/nations are acting like this, suppressing various alarming statistics, one being the instances of torture, the law-abiding/lawfully behaving citizens are pushed into being logical dissidents to their states/nations.

Their "weapons" as straight facts or not, at the disposal:
Betrayal in return (because the state/nation isn't...)
The political attempt (with many targets now)
All other demonstrating acts (as d*mn objection)... Everything...

(Examples of big failures: China and the one-child policy and WWF, with parts of Greenpeace or not, and their promise to deliver leadership by "national parks" that has turned to... 7,1 Bn people... much insect-culture on the planet...)

The World has entered a dangerous condition! (Black laughter or not!)

PS: The two largest human rights organisations make this no better, HRW (with the personal weapons) and Amnesty International (with European peace and law ideals)... always with "calm down" as one of the loudest responses... psychology concerns...!

PS2: Logicians looking for fuzzy logic expressions, police state (unwanted = 0) and democracy (wanted, maximally as idea into reality = 1). How is yours? (Rather than one of the "glider" expressions, one from one of my original accounts (2 exactly) on (D)Arpanet as newsservers/discussion boards.

To add strength to the World more:
All national assemblies are bound too, as much as the highest level courts are bound to laws and regulations and truth on a "no-mistake-basis" (also by "overturning principle" by the properly qualified lawyers). We write:

The laws are to work deeper and simultaneously strengthen the already existing laws and regulations. Therefore, the notion that any law can pass is only brain-hypothesis-entertainment with no value as such other than to entertain fantasies of "this and that"! (I.e., taken out and shot in being shameful!)

Police too, checked from all angles, the 3 perfect parts form democracy! With media serving the public, being the 4th, crucial parts being, for the time being, legal system reporting and reports on weapons, lethal and non-lethal, outside World too.

However... By police state and fuzzy logic:

To gain a reading of the police state as degree into your life and your view of society, effectively, you only need to "factor in" your own personal unrest/uneasiness/worries in order to have a clue of where to set the fuzzy logic value! Good?

The Humanistic Oath for Leaders!

There is this suggestion to require ALL LEADERS to lay down a humanistic oath, committing them to proper leadership in accordance with laws and regulations, incl. the Human Rights (ECHR/UDHR)! This may make all these leaders liable to harder punishment or harder sentencing in the Court of Law!

The above is logically placed, also, with "100 % Society", as ...
- http://whatiswritten777.blogspot.no/2012/05/100-society-matter-of-political-science.html - The 100% Society - A Matter of Political Science.
- http://whatiswritten777.blogspot.no/2011/11/straight-addition-to-100-society.html - A Straight Addition to 100% Society - Philosophy of Politics.