During the interview on MKFM, Theo asked me to define the difference
between "Legal" and "Lawful".
Something I've done many times, but always in print, or via a
Not having either of those facilities to hand (at the time) I
kind-of 'ducked' the question.
However, here it is (in longform):
An example of "Law" is The Law of Gravity.
1. NOT made by mankind.
2. NO Court required to judge that 'things fall down'
3. NO penalty for breaking it, because it can't be broken.
And example of "Legal" is any Statute you care to name.
1. MADE by Mankind (and thus the OPPOSITE of Law)
2. JUDGED in a Court (and thus the OPPOSITE of Law)
3. ALWAYS a penalty for breaking it, because it CAN be broken (and
thus the OPPOSITE of Law)
So "Legal" is the EXACT OPPOSITE of "Lawful".
The exact opposite of "Lawful" is "Unlawful".
So "Legal" = "Unlawful"
Unlawful things are done by OUTLAWS
Thus Policymen (also now to be known as State Mercenaries),
Judges, Magistrates, etc are OUTLAWS.
An OUTLAW (being 'outside the Law') has, therefore, no recourse to
It's a good job we don't employ Bounty Hunters these days.
You want it another way?
In “Law”, Truth is Sovereign … it is the most important thing,
and the decider of ‘Justice’ (Witnesses must swear to tell the
Truth, the Whole Truth, and nothing but the Truth ... no hearsay
... no 'computer says this, computer says that' shit. 'Wot a bloke
told me down the Pub' is NOT considered 'evidence'. Judgements
must be made by a Jury BEYOND ... BEYOND ... BEYOND
... reasonable doubt ... which means 'as near to bloody certain as
makes very little difference')
In “Legal”, Truth is pretty much IRRELEVANT. What is relevant
is: “Someone’s interpretation of some words written on paper,
by someone else, the interpretation taking place at some point
in time, and generally designed to screw you - in favour of some
CORPORATE Entity”. In other words “Legal” is
thoroughly IMMORAL. (Witnesses are not required, as
long as a computer printout is to hand. No-one takes any kind of
Oath to tell the Truth, the Whole Truth, and nothing but the Truth
... or to tell anything at all ... hearsay is perfectly
permissible, especially if it helps to screw you ... 'computer
says this, computer says that' is the meat & drink of "Legal".
'Wot a bloke told me down the Pub' is considered perfectly valid
'evidence', provided it helps to screw you. The judgement is based
on 'The Balance of Probability' which means that, unless you have
some kind of 'status' or 'title' ... you either did it, or thought
about doing it ... which, in Legal, amounts to the same thing)