New World Order (NWO), sometimes called the Great Reset

[Sid Belzberg]

All will be owned by the State, and it will guarantee continuous accessibility to what is needed materially.

This projection is often designated as an extension of Marxism. It may be an extension of old-style “USSR Communism”. It is directly opposed to Democratic Marxism

Karl Marx himself said that communism can be summed up in the following phrase "abolition of Private property.' So if you find this to be a repugnant idea why are you calling yourself a "democratic MARXIST"? Do you think we all can somehow read your mind and parse what you are trying to say?

[Dilip Panjwani]

“The distinguishing feature of Communism [Marxian use, not old-style USSR Communism use] is not the abolition of property generally, but the abolition of bourgeois property. But modern bourgeois private property is the final and most complete expression of the system of producing and appropriating products, that is based on class antagonisms, on the exploitation of the many by the few.

Bob,
Nobody argues against the fact that exploitation is wrong, and should be prevented. But why are you confusing that with the ownership of whatever one may want to, using one's own honestly, smartly, hard-earned money? Why are you assuming that everybody who earns enough to own what is more than 'average need' is a dishonest crook? Why not just get rid of corrupt capitalism which enables exploitation, instead of adopting Marxism which replaces the rewarding of smart, hard-working individuals (Libertarianism) with the rewarding of lazy bums who are simply good at licking the a...s of the illegitimately powerful?

[Dilip Panjwani]

2. Property Ownership: Fact - All will be owned by the State, and it will guarantee continuous accessibility to what is needed materially.

Response: This projection is often designated as an extension of Marxism. It may be an extension of old-style “USSR Communism”. It is directly opposed to Democratic Marxism

Good you realize that the Communist State cannot guarantee anything...except misery...

[Bob Armstrong]

The Great Reset – the video lecture (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GUJ9kUBBYb4 )
Review of Facts Stated (23/8/12) – By The REAL News (TRN) – Journalist: Bob Armstrong

1. Covert Influencers/WEF Agenda: Fact - They deliberately create "Situations of Grave Threat" so the Public will accept Dictatorship (The majority will willingly give up their human rights for security).

Response: Neither the COVID-19 world pandemic, nor negative climate change (NCC), were deliberately created by this faction, we call the Dictatorship Faction (DF). However, the DF did make use of these two crises to further this agenda.

2. Property Ownership: Fact - All will be owned by the State, and it will guarantee continuous accessibility to what is needed materially.

Response: This projection is often designated as an extension of Marxism. It may be an extension of old-style “USSR Communism”. It is directly opposed to Democratic Marxism (Which is quite different than old-style USSR Communism). In DM there is room for worker personal private ownership, without excess. What there is not room for is “bourgeois property”:


“The distinguishing feature of Communism [Marxian use, not old-style USSR Communism use] is not the abolition of property generally, but the abolition of bourgeois property. But modern bourgeois private property is the final and most complete expression of the system of producing and appropriating products, that is based on class antagonisms, on the exploitation of the many by the few.

In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.”

https://www.marxists.org/archive/mar...festo/ch02.htm


3. Energy: Fact - The collapse of the fossil-based energy system is a deliberate action towards gaining dictatorship.

Response: The disengagement from fossil fuel energy is a necessary step to try to reverse anthropogenic negative climate change. The move to green energy is also required because fossil fuels on Earth are finite. However, the DF did indeed make use of this planetary crisis to further its agenda.


4. Agriculture: Fact - The high-yield agricultural system now in place is being deliberately shut down so as to create mass hunger, and further the strategy of world depopulation.

Response: Farming as currently practised is mainly carnivore-directed, gobbles up a very large amount of resources, and is currently unsustainable. Non-carnivore-directed farming is resource-efficient, and converted land produces much more non-carnivore food, than the carnivore-directed food currently being produced. The DF is not into depopulation, but is into the resource-efficient feeding of the people of Earth. Lab-grown meat, and insects, are options that can helpfully supplement an efficient food system. Food security can be achieved with the right mix of sustainable food production.

5. Transportation: Fact - Individual modes of transportation, especially cars, are deliberately being driven into a shortage situation, so the free movement of people can be curtailed, and people will be forced to live in “15 minute cities”. This is the reason for the push for electric vehicles.

Response: Electric vehicles are part of the transitioning out of the unsustainable use of fossil fuels. It is not for the purpose of creating a car shortage. Some argue that the gasses emitted in the use of fossil fuels in transportation (And their extraction) is a contributor to negative climate change. There are some advantages to living and being serviced locally. This in no way necessarily leads to inability to travel outside of your normal living region.

6.The Chaos Factor: Fact - The DF is deliberately creating chaos in order to present them with an opportunity to grab full control.......the DF is not particularly concerned about actually achieving its Utopian goals.

Response: Utopia is a society that has maximized the quality of life of the residents. The government implementing a Utopia is known as a “benevolent” government. Within the DF are many benevolent forces and intentions. However, as in all of life, there is the criminal element who will participate as a prelude to them attempting to achieve their own covert criminal agenda.

The DF does not need to create chaos; the world simply presents enough chaotic situations, that the DF does its best to use, to grab as much control as they can.

7. The World Economic Forum (WEF): Fact - This is a private organization. It has become influential as a think tank for projecting a better life for humanity. Its Executive Director is Klaus Schwab. In reality, it is a puppet organization of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and is promoting communist policies without overtly attributing them to Communism. It has effective agents who are influenced by it at all levels of government and commerce. The eventual goal is “one-party rule”.

Response: China is the most influential country on the globe now. The CCP is set on world domination by all means other than force (This does not mean at some point they may consider force necessary). However it is not currently the only major world force. The world oligarchs have great influence and operate through both public and covert organization and coordination. There is also a third major force at work in the world, though thought not to exist by some: Extra-terrestrial Beings and Artificial Intelligences. And there may be other competing factions of substantial influence. The WEF is seen as a valuable tool by all forces, and there is a vying for the most influence. It is true that many of the reasonable WEF policies are adopted from Democratic Marxism, without credit. Only some of these are currently held by the CCP. But it is incorrect to say that Democratic Marxism is one of the groups vying for influence within the WEF.

8. Human Judgment: Fact -The powers that be do not disclose what they know, they lie to the public, and their fundamental belief is that the ordinary person is not competent enough to judge truth from falsehood. They also believe that the public cannot “handle the truth”. As well, those in power declare that the public has gone way overboard in questioning government and societal institutions. They advise that the public should leave complicated issues to the experts; today's issues require a lot of technical expertise that the public simply does not have.

Response: This statement is true, not only re government at all levels, but international corporations, and many very influential individuals. The public must force from those in the know, the truth without omission. Society at large, not individual forces, must make decisions about what is best for human society in the future.

The REAL News (TRN)

E-mail:

therealnewsmedia81@gmail.com

Snail Mail:

The Real News,

P.O. Box 3246,

Meaford, Ontario, Canada

N4L 1A5

Facebook Site:

The REAL News (https://www.facebook.com/bob.armstrong.9235)

Website:

In development

[Pargat Perrer]

This post is a classic example of what a troll does. You have often complained that I do not respond to your posts. I am writing now so that you understand why. It is also why Kerry Liles insisted that you be banned from this site.

LOL There was nothing in my last post that could be considered "banworthy" or even trolling. I posted legitimate criticism and debunking of LIbertarianism.

I can hear Jack Nicholson ....

"YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!"

Dilip, if you want to be a good spokesperson for Libertarianism, you need to be able to respond to criticism of Libertarianism with something other than claims of trolling. Otherwise you are just dismissed.

[Dilip Panjwani]

Originally posted by Pargat Perrer

Libertarianism based on this Natural Law concept will turn into Lawyertarianism




This sounds like total dictatorship. Someone, let's call him The Benevolent One, decides what "Natural Law" is and no one, not even a lawyer, gets to dispute it.

Even if The Benevolent One is truly benevolent (LOL), there will arise millions of scenarios that will have members of society nashing their teeth feeling they have been violated / wronged. Why will this happen? Because of human nature, because of greed. You cannot legislate away human nature.

And the more this sense of being wronged, the more dissent until finally there are protests and violence to bring about the downfall of The Benevolent One and his cronies.






Wow, Dilip, I hope you are not elected as The Benevolent One .... we SHOULD expect pedestrians to wear reflective clothing at night. That is COMMON SENSE!

So you fell right into the trap. If we are to have this Natural Law in which everything is "common sense", then it should require pedestrians at night to wear reflective clothing, to be better seen. ISN'T THAT COMMON SENSE? Why is all responsibility put on the driver? That isn't common sense. Getting back to my point above, if The Benevolent One decrees that all responsibility of preventing collisions between cars and pedestrians at night is put on the car driver, then you will have thousands of drivers nashing their teeth over this decree, leading eventually to anger and violence.

Then you have to have a law as to just HOW REFLECTIVE the pedestrian clothing must be .... there must be STANDARDS TO UPHOLD. Now lets assume that to meet the reflective standards, certain chemicals have to be used. Then we get into standards about the safe use of these chemicals, which might be toxic.

You see, Dilip .... when it is all said and done, it comes down to many many laws, just like we have today. In fact, since pedestrians in must municipalities are not required to wear reflective clothing at night, I would argue we don't have ENOUGH laws!

There is no mythical "Natural Law" that takes care of every single scenario without leaving SOMEONE shortchanged and wronged.

If you believe there is, try stating it for us. I just demonstrated how this notion of "just use common sense" can lead to a myriad of necessary laws and standards.

I consider Libertarianism thoroughly DEBUNKED.

This post is a classic example of what a troll does. You have often complained that I do not respond to your posts. I am writing now so that you understand why. It is also why Kerry Liles insisted that you be banned from this site.

[Pargat Perrer]

Originally posted by Pargat Perrer

Libertarianism based on this Natural Law concept will turn into Lawyertarianism

On the contrary, lawyers will be out of business, as there is only one simple Law, instead of a thousand contradictory ones, and also because common sense is not at all uncommon in judges (that is why we respect them a lot). Any lawyer who tries to tell lies (and we all know that lawyers are liars, most of the time), will end up paying heavily for wasting everyone else's time. That does not happen today because lawyers are a big influence on what laws are made, and they have done their best to make the legal system a bloody complicated mess, as that provides them with more butter on their bread, and they have made sure that they cannot be sued for wasting everyone's time, all the time.

This sounds like total dictatorship. Someone, let's call him The Benevolent One, decides what "Natural Law" is and no one, not even a lawyer, gets to dispute it.

Even if The Benevolent One is truly benevolent (LOL), there will arise millions of scenarios that will have members of society nashing their teeth feeling they have been violated / wronged. Why will this happen? Because of human nature, because of greed. You cannot legislate away human nature.

And the more this sense of being wronged, the more dissent until finally there are protests and violence to bring about the downfall of The Benevolent One and his cronies.

And, btw, nobody expects pedestrians to wear reflective clothing...it is common sense that it is up to the driver to keep his eyes open and drive safely, whatever the pedestrian is wearing (if anything at all!), as he is the one who ends up hurting the pedestrian.

Wow, Dilip, I hope you are not elected as The Benevolent One .... we SHOULD expect pedestrians to wear reflective clothing at night. That is COMMON SENSE!

So you fell right into the trap. If we are to have this Natural Law in which everything is "common sense", then it should require pedestrians at night to wear reflective clothing, to be better seen. ISN'T THAT COMMON SENSE? Why is all responsibility put on the driver? That isn't common sense. Getting back to my point above, if The Benevolent One decrees that all responsibility of preventing collisions between cars and pedestrians at night is put on the car driver, then you will have thousands of drivers nashing their teeth over this decree, leading eventually to anger and violence.

Then you have to have a law as to just HOW REFLECTIVE the pedestrian clothing must be .... there must be STANDARDS TO UPHOLD. Now lets assume that to meet the reflective standards, certain chemicals have to be used. Then we get into standards about the safe use of these chemicals, which might be toxic.

You see, Dilip .... when it is all said and done, it comes down to many many laws, just like we have today. In fact, since pedestrians in must municipalities are not required to wear reflective clothing at night, I would argue we don't have ENOUGH laws!

There is no mythical "Natural Law" that takes care of every single scenario without leaving SOMEONE shortchanged and wronged.

If you believe there is, try stating it for us. I just demonstrated how this notion of "just use common sense" can lead to a myriad of necessary laws and standards.

I consider Libertarianism thoroughly DEBUNKED.

[Fred Henderson]

Somewhere in this discussion I mentioned The Day the Earth Stood Still. A grievous error, but I trust that my heart will be perceived as having been in the right place. I was of course thinking of Ten Days that Shook the World.

[Bob Armstrong]

Human Self-Government

Statement # 6 (Proposed)

“Direct” democracy is preferable to “Representative” Democracy, if implementable. Usually, direct democracy has been practised in small, local political units. But with today's technology, direct democracy voting can be used within larger political units.

Processing Protocol

First Step: "Challenge" a Statement with which one disagrees, with reasons. It is most helpful if the Challenge involves a revision of the Statement to what is thought to be correct. Should there be no Challenge within one week, then the proposed Statement is “generally accepted” by this group.

Second Step: Others must "Defend" the statement, with reasons, when challenged. All Challenges must be answered. So a Statement (Proposed) just stays on the list until a Defence is entered, with the outstanding Challenge attached. It remains part of the List since proposed Statements are always, initially, given the benefit of the doubt that they are generally accepted, or would not have been put forward as such.

Note: If there is an omission of some critical Statement from the existing List of Generally Accepted Statements, then a CT'er, in a new post, can propose the additional Statement(s) to add to the list. We are attempting here an Executive Summary Statement only.

Bob A (As Participant)

[Bob Armstrong]

5 Generally Accepted Statements re Human Self-Governance (NWO/GR)

Statement # 1.

World-wide, in the past, people have had a structure of government imposed on them by a minority.

Support – Bob Armstrong - Post # 117 – 23/7/21:

“The Statement does not refer to a societal minority imposing its government on a societal majority. This statement refers to the fact that in the family of earliest man, the male set the rules for his female partner(s) and children - a minority of one. Later in groups, it was a "chief", or a "king"......it is individuals determining a government structure for all. Then, for example in the United Kingdom, the wealthy nobles, barons, dukes, etc. force the King to share power with them, a minority (The Elite), and then laws got promulgated satisfactory to them (Not much consideration of the welfare of the majority). The first Statement refers to pre-democracy times.”

Statement # 2.

Over time, electors have democratically accepted the government structure proposed at the time, usually some variant of earlier forms of government (Who are "electors" has evolved over time).

Support – Bob Armstrong – Post # 122 – 23/7/24:

“The statement does not say that the people democratically accepted the government structure "imposed"! It says the government structure "proposed".

The general sentiment that people, in a democracy, "vote for the party of their choice" is true. The elector has become, now, in a democracy, responsible for the society from then on (Assuming it remains a democracy). In a democracy, everything is subject to the will of the majority. Electors around the world have voted to adopt capitalism, social democracy, socialism, Democratic Marxism, Communism and Fascism.....by electing parties with these various policies, the people are voting for the structuring of their government.

There is also, almost world-wide, the acceptance of "representative" government - this is being democratically adopted.”

Statement # 3.

Some societies have had imposed on them, or chosen by election, a dictatorship (Rule by the One). However, some societies have chosen by election, a democracy (Rule by the Majority).

Support – Bob Armstrong – Post # Post # 129 - 23/7/31

Democracy means Rule by the Majority. But the point of the post is that that some societies are not democratic. They have not adopted "rule by the majority". They have adopted by election, or had imposed on them, dictatorships (Rule of the One).

Statement # 4.

People have passed "Constitutions" and developed Courts in order to have human rights respected and to prohibit the tyranny of the majority.

Support - Dilip Panjwani (Post # 111 - 23/7/15)

“... even a cursory peek at histories of nations will reveal multiple examples of 'tyranny of the majority'; it exists even today...”

Statement # 5.

People (A majority of the local government, at least) have the right to agree with each other on a government structure for themselves and can join hands to act jointly to govern themselves, and act in a way they feel "benefits themselves and humanity", so long as there is a respect for basic human rights.

Support - Dilip Panjwani (Post # 111 - 23/7/15):

“...the sad part about representative democracies is that the politicians who get elected do not serve the majority...they make fools of the majority (and minority), and sometimes it takes more than one term for the electors to realize that they are being hoodwinked, and then they elect a different party which hoodwinks them in a different way. The so-called majority does not rule, but decides which of the political parties they are less mad at. If only people could govern themselves, ........, where they may join hands with like-minded co-citizens in certain ways, that would be as close to Utopia as one can get...”

Note: This is now the complete, currently unchallenged, list achieved by this CT'er group.

Bob A (As Group Secretary)

[Bob Armstrong]

Human Self-Government

Statement # 3.

Democratic societies have adopted "Rule by the Majority".

Proposed Revision – Bob Armstrong – Post # 130 – 23/8/1

3. Some societies have had imposed on them, or chosen by election, a dictatorship (Rule by the One). However, some societies have chosen by election, a democracy (Rule by the Majority).

Reason for Revision

I have previously successfully defended existing Statement # 3 from a recent Challenge.

However, the Challenge, on further thought, does point to the fact that the Statement # 3 is poorly worded.

Thus I am proposing a revised Statement # 3.

Support – Bob Armstrong – Post # Post # 129 - 23/7/31

Democracy means Rule by the Majority. But the point of the Statement is that that some societies are not democratic. They have not adopted "rule by the majority". They have adopted by election, or had imposed on them, dictatorships (Rule of the One).

Processing

No CT'er has come forward within one week from the date of the proposed revision to Challenge the proposed Statement # 3.

Conclusion

The revised Statement # 3 is generally accepted by this CT'er group and joins the list of generally accepted Statements.

Bob A (As Group Secretary)

[Bob Armstrong]

Libertarianism

Statements Generally Accepted by Libertarians (Proposed)

Statement # 1

Governments at all levels pass too many laws. Many are more restrictive than necessary, and some are just unnecessary. This unduly restrains the freedom of the individual, which is the paramount concern of society.

Statement # 2

But the main problem in current society is the "absolute enforcement" of law (Zero tolerance), even when such enforcement is illogical. An example might be giving a citizen a traffic ticket for going through a Stop Sign at midnight when no other pedestrian or vehicle is in sight. The laws are to be honoured in "spirit", though not always in the "letter".

Statement # 3

The Natural Law is: All is permissible to the individual that is not harmful to others/society. If one wants to harm oneself, though illogical, one is free to do so.

Statement # 4

The Natural Law operates to bring common sense to law enforcement and to maximize the Freedom of the Individual. Thus, in certain circumstances (As in the traffic example above), the Natural Law overrides the actual relevant law, to provide an exception to the following of the law.

Statement # 5

Those in society charged with enforcement of law (Such as the police), have discretion to recognize the operation of the Natural Law in certain circumstances, and treat the conduct of the individual as not illegal. Thus they will not lay any charge against the individual.

Statement # 6

Where, by the conduct of the individual, someone breaks a law, and the Natural Law does not apply (There has been harm to another/society), the police/government can lay a charge and bring the individual before the court.

Statement # 7

The court shall verify the breaking of the law, and impose a penalty. Penalties should usually involve a "Compensation Payment" of some kind to the harmed individual/society at large. This will assist in deterring actions in society that are harmful to others/society.

Processing Protocol - Phase One

The first step is for Libertarians, and others who understand Libertarianism, even if not an adherent, to "Challenge" a Statement with which they disagree, with reasons (They believe it does not correctly set out the policies of Libertarianism). It is most helpful if the Challenge involves a revision of the Statement to what is thought to be correct.

Then others must "Defend" the statement, with reasons, as an accurate presentation of Libertarian policy.

If there is no Challenge to a Statement within one week, then it is considered acceptable to the Libertarians in this group. If there is a challenge, then the week for processing runs from the date of the Defence.

If there is an omission of some critical policy of Libertarianism (We are attempting here an Executive Summary only), then a CT'er can propose an additional Statement to add to the list in a new post.

Note: We are not yet dealing with those who fundamentally oppose a Libertarian position. This will come in Phase Two of the processing of these Statements.

Bob Armstrong (As Group Secretary)

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Pargat:

Thanks for the compliment (Post # 146 - 23/8/8).

And I am going to try to go one step further when I get a few minutes.

Using my "Conversation Format Protocol", as Group Secretary, I am going to post a series of Statements that will be considered generally accepted BY LIBERTARIANS! They will be as simple as I can make them.

We will try to nail down this political ideology even further and more simply than we have so far. You are right that Dilip is a regular poster, and often argues from the Libertarian perspective. I hope by this that we all will now have a better grasp of his submissions.

As usual, these Statements can be challenged, initially, by Libertarians mainly, that they are inaccurate re Libertarianism. Others who understand Libertarianism better, though not an adherent, can also propose revisions/support, which Libertarians will accept.

Others can then defend that the Statement is an accurate rendition of a Libertarian position.

Finally, once we have the Statements accepted by the Libertarians, we will open the floor to "disagreement, with reasons", with a Libertarian Statement. Then the Libertarians can rush to "support, with reasons", their Statement.

I think this is a good use of our time, even if there are few Libertarians among the CT'ers here. It will likely lead to enlarged discussion of societal issues.

Bob A (As Group Secretary)

[Dilip Panjwani]

[I]


Libertarianism based on this Natural Law concept will turn into Lawyertarianism

On the contrary, lawyers will be out of business, as there is only one simple Law, instead of a thousand contradictory ones, and also because common sense is not at all uncommon in judges (that is why we respect them a lot). Any lawyer who tries to tell lies (and we all know that lawyers are liars, most of the time), will end up paying heavily for wasting everyone else's time. That does not happen today because lawyers are a big influence on what laws are made, and they have done their best to make the legal system a bloody complicated mess, as that provides them with more butter on their bread, and they have made sure that they cannot be sued for wasting everyone's time, all the time.
And, btw, nobody expects pedestrians to wear reflective clothing...it is common sense that it is up to the driver to keep his eyes open and drive safely, whatever the pedestrian is wearing (if anything at all!), as he is the one who ends up hurting the pedestrian.

[Pargat Perrer]

Originally posted by Bob Armstrong
Hi Dilip (Re Post # 143 (23/8/7):

So as I understand now, it is not the "laws" that are generally a problem for you (Though you feel some laws passed are really unnecessary).

It is the "absolute enforcement" of the law, without exception, when it seems illogical to enforce it..........so going through a stop sign at midnight when clearly there are no pedestrians or other cars around, would be OK.

In a sense, the Natural Law (You are allowed to do what is safe, regardless of legal restriction) allows an EXCEPTION to the particular law involved. In other words, where the Natural Law allows something, the relevant government law should not be "weaponized" (should not be enforced).... that is, should not be enforced when it makes no sense to enforce it in those particular set of circumstances.

The police (Charged with law enforcement) can decide on the spot, whether a charge should be laid ..... they have discretion to decide the Natural Law should exempt the driver from enforcement of the stop sign law.

So each individual has the "right" to decide if Natural Law over-rides the government law in any individual situation, at any time.

And we hope the individual is right. If they are not right, and cause damage of some kind to someone, other than themselves, then they can be taken to court by the government, and the judge will decide the penalty for the bad judgment by the driver........and this can include a "compensation payment" to those suffering loss because of the drivers misjudgment.

Do I now get it? It is important that CT'ers clearly understand your position, so when you apply it in various discussions, we all know where you are coming from.

Bob A

And traffic misjudgments have serious potential consequences, so the penalties are appropriately very stiff, which would definitely dissuade people from taking risks.
And remember what you were taught in elementary school: laws are meant to be followed in their spirit, not necessarily in their letter...

Dilip, I remember asking you for an explanation of "Natural Law" here on CT probably more than a year ago, and you totally ignored it. You had provided some kind of technical jargon which left me and probably many others not knowing what the bleep you were talking about.

It has taken Bob A. to explain it in plain English. And you are good with his explanation. Why didn't you explain it yourself like this a long time ago?

Now that I see the explanation, I have a better understanding. Finally I have an inkling what this is all about. My thanks to Bob A. for his work in analyzing the technojargon you seen to prefer using, Dilip.


But ... I still believe that in the end, Libertarianism based on this Natural Law concept will turn into Lawyertarianism. Politicians creating and writing laws will be replaced by high-priced lawyers interpreting for the courts all kinds of scenarios that come up that may or may not violate Natural Law.

Let's just take Donald Trump as a prime example. He says he lost the 2020 election due to what could be interpreted as violations of Natural Law. He would argue he was hurt by these violations. So under such a Libertarian government, nothing would be changed, we would still see long court cases with many lawyers involved. And ultimately, judges who are human and subject to bias will decide. The Supreme Courts of various countries will all become even more political (conservative or liberal) than they are now.

Even when it comes to something as simple as Bob A.'s traffic examples, there will be dramatic increases in lawyers arguing cases before judges. Instead of a written law being enforced without prejudice, as we have now when people are caught in violation of such law, we will have an explosion of frivolous lawsuits to determine if Natural Law was violated or not. A case where a pedestrian is hit in the crosswalk at night, which will be prosecuted under existing traffic laws as a cut-and-dried violation on the part of the motorist, will become a new and special case because a lawyer hired by the motorist would argue that the pedestrian wasn't wearing enough reflective or bright material to be seen by the motorist. And then a judge have to be provided evidence and would have to make a judgment about the clothing material worn by the pedestrian.

In effect, written laws will be replaced by explosion of lawsuits. There will be shortages of judges, lawyers, stenographers, paralegals, and courthouse facilities. Probably the halls of Parliament will be taken over to be used as courthouses.

In effect, all political institutions will be merely replaced by rapid growth of increasingly-political-leaning judicial institutions.

In effect, nothing will really change. Greed will still guide human affairs just as it does now.