People’s Law Discussion

People’s Law Discussion with Paul Skousen

I love history’s tell-tale explanation of what works and what doesn’t when it comes to governing a society. And no matter how hard overlords try to cover the truth, later generations always uncover their corruption to one degree or another, and prove once again that eternal principles violated never equate to human growth or humans reaching their greatest potential.

And so, history shows that all man-made governments have failed to ignite and unleash our greatest capacities. The only exceptions are those governments that included any of the undying principles upon which our Constitution was built, such as the governments operating for the Anglo-Saxons and the Israelites. Aside from these, most cultures operated under the domain of strong men, monarchs, tribal chiefs, and a ruling class with the power to impose their laws based upon personal whim, and always oppressive against human rights.

The Founding Fathers loathed this bloody history of humanity—millions of people constantly being beaten down to slavery by so many tyrants and self-appointed rulers. The founders called this repressive form of government “Ruler’s Law.” For ages it was common in Europe and throughout the world, and certainly continues in many places today.

As my father stated in The Five Thousand Year Leap: “The long history of Ruler’s Law is one of blood and terror, both anciently and in modern times. Under it people are stratified into an aristocracy of the Ruler’s retinue while the law to the common people is one of perpetual poverty, excessive taxation, stringent regulations and a continuous existence of misery.” (Page 13.)

Proof that “blood and terror” remains the outcome of Ruler’s Law can be seen today in any of the socialist totalitarian regimes now operating in Cuba, North Korea, and in many other pockets of oppression scattered throughout Asia, the middle east, Africa, and the old Soviet Republic. If we could fly to these places today, we could be personal witnesses to political imprisonment, starvation, repressive poverty, and crushing suffocation of basic human rights that is in fact the order of the day for a sizeable part of our world’s population. These are the bloody, horrible testimonies to the abject failure of Ruler’s Law—proof that it does not and never has offered progress and happiness found in those governments where the people have a voice.

As discussed in my first column, the Founders were seeking a balanced “Center” where the dynamics of government were neither tyranny on one hand nor anarchy on the other. Let’s look at my father’s words from The Five Thousand Year Leap for more clarity on the Founder’s attitude toward establishing a government under the voice of a free people and the contrast between Ruler’s Law and People’s Law.

The Founders’ Attraction to People’s Law

In direct contrast to the harsh oppression of Ruler’s Law, the Founders, particularly Jefferson, admired the institutes of freedom under People’s Law as originally practiced among the Anglo Saxons. As one authority on Jefferson points out:
“Jefferson’s great ambition at that time [1776] was to promote a renaissance of Anglo Saxon primitive institutions on the new continent. Thus presented, the American Revolution was nothing but the reclamation of the Anglo Saxon birthright of which the colonists had been deprived by a ‘long trend of abuses.’ Nor does it appear that there was anything in this theory which surprised or shocked his contemporaries; Adams apparently did not disapprove of it, and it would be easy to bring in many similar expressions of the same idea in documents of the time.” (Gilbert Chinard, Thomas Jefferson: The Apostle of Americanism, 2nd edition, revised, The University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1975, pp. 86-87.)

Characteristics of Anglo Saxon Common Law or People’s Law

Here are the principle points of People’s Law as practiced by the Anglo-Saxons:

1. The Anglo-Saxons considered themselves a commonwealth of freemen.
2. All decisions and the selection of leaders had to be with the consent of the people, preferably by full consensus, not just a majority.
3. The laws by which they were governed were considered natural laws given by divine dispensation, and were so well known by the people they did not have to be written down.
4. Power was dispersed among the people and never allowed to concentrate in any one person or group. Even in time of war, the authority granted to the leaders was temporary and the power of the people to remove them was direct and simple.
5. Primary responsibility for resolving problems rested first of all with the individual, then the family, then the tribe or community, then the region, and finally, the nation.
6. They were organized into small, manageable groups where every adult had a voice and a vote. They divided the people into units of ten families who elected a leader; then fifty families who elected a leader; then a hundred families who elected a leader; and then a thousand families who elected a leader.
7. They believed the rights of the individual were considered unalienable and could not be violated without risking the wrath of divine justice as well as civil retribution by the people’s judges.
8. The system of justice was structured on the basis of severe punishment unless there was complete reparation to the person who had been wronged. There were only four “crimes” or offenses against the whole people. These were treason, by betraying their own people; cowardice, by refusing to fight or failing to fight courageously; desertion; and homosexuality. These were considered capital offenses. All other offenses required reparation to the person who had been wronged.
9. They always attempted to solve problems on the level where the problem originated. If this was impossible they went no higher than was absolutely necessary to get a remedy. Usually only the most complex problems involving the welfare of the whole people, or a large segment of the people, ever went to the leaders for solution.

The contrast between Ruler’s Law (all power in the ruler) and People’s Law (all power in the people) is graphically illustrated below. Note where the power base is located under each of these systems. Also compare the relationship between the individual and the rest of society under these two systems.

Next Discussion:
The Founders Note the Similarities between Anglo Saxon Common Law and People’s Law

This entry was posted on Tuesday, April 21st, 2009 at 9:30 pm and is filed under Blog. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.