"Necessity knows no law." ? I disagree.

[Jace: Johanson]

I'm not perfectly current on Marc's views on everything, but assuming this one hasn't changed since filming his interview about Adventures in Legal Land, I wanted to offer my view.

First, when I had studied Marc's work for only a little while, I made a connection. He said, and I totally follow him here, that the facts are the important thing. An opinion is based on a certain set of facts. Assault and Battery is a legal opinion based on a certain set of facts. The relationship looks like this:

Facts - Independent
Opinion - Dependent

How and/or when is a need in any way NOT an opinion?

The reason I bring this all up, is that Marc related this maxim as a reason why he doesn't follow the idea of getting back to the Common Law. I don't contend that this could be his only reason, or that I know what the others are, or that there AREN'T good reasons supporting this; however, as illustrated, I feel this is a poor one.

The Law known to the concept of "necessity" could be called "desire." What is desired? What's the object? (This doesn't yet even take into account the worth of the object, but we'll get to that.)

This is the first step in the stage. The next step, which I feel most people fail to consider and appreciate, is. "How does this desire relate/interract/affect all my other desires?"

Forget for a moment the third step of, "How do I achieve what I desire?" The second step is where the distinctions between honorable/dishonorable or good/evil is made in choice. If we examine even for a moment how many different objects we are all in the process of pursuing at any one time, we begin to realize that many cross-affects must exist. If we consider one in particular, to wit, "I desire relationships," we must realize that this is where all the biggest complications exist. Even if one does not hold this desire, not acknowledging that many in the rest of the world do would be counter-productive (though that certainly won't stop everyone).

I don't feel I need to go much further for anyone to see where this exercise goes. The rest is annsilary to the original topic. Necessity knows law of a certainty. Where can it be shown that "necessity" exists outside the universe? Are there not laws of the universe?

Perhaps the most crucial twist in thinking to consider, is that of the idea of necessity being entirely about means, and not worth (another illustration of it's dependent nature). Whatever the object is, if it is not it's own cause and effect (a principle) it is merely another means, even if one thinks it an end. George Orwell mentioned the ideas of power being considerred either as a means or an end. Certainly for the "NWO" it appears to be the end. But then, the end of what? Where's the worth? If one has all-power and doesn't use it, what's it good for?

Happily, Marc, I feel this is the only point of yours with which I disagree (although, since I've found your work relatively recently, there may well be others later).

Peace.