Today we can no longer accept these views, for the assumptions with which we approach the problem have changed. To us the idea of a human nature which differs fundamentally from the nature of all other living creatures seems strange indeed; we no longer think of man as a being who has harboured an idea of justice from the beginning. But if, perhaps, we offer no answer to the question how Law arose, we must still make it clear that it could not have arisen legally. Law cannot have begot itself of itself. Its origin lies beyond the legal sphere. In complaining that Law is nothing more or less than legalized injustice, one fails to perceive that it could only be otherwise if it had existed from the very beginning. If it is supposed to have arisen once, then that which at that moment became Law could not have been Law before. To demand that Law should have arisen legally is to demand the impossible. Whoever does so applies to something standing outside the legal order a concept valid only within the order.
While well intended, this argument as to the origin of the law is fallacious. Man certainly has arisen out of man, all the way down the millenia to where "man" meant bacterium. The chicken-or-egg dilemma is a construct of misapprehension of nature, nothing more. In fact more and more bacterium-looking eggs came from and borne forth more and more bacterium-looking chickens since the first bacterium-looking substance ceased to look more like substance than like bacterium, with all the dirty cross-fertilisation and messy monkey-fucking this model implies. Law comes out of shamanism and science comes out of alchemy, and both come out of language which in turn comes out of them both and much side noise, and in the end it's impossible to say whether improvement in the style of cosmetics used in Egypt during Thales isn't the principal cause of the invention of space flight, through having created the linguistic structures that created the brain holes that allowed for the required concepts and notions to properly resonate. So in the end, yes, quite : everything begot itself out of itself, or in other words the question of origin is meaningless to the fruits of the mind much in the same way and much for the same reason nazism's question of the origin is meaningless to the fruits of woman's womb.
We who only see the effect of Law—which is to make peace—must realize that it could not have originated except through a recognition of the existing state of affairs, however that has arisen. Attempts to do otherwise would have renewed and perpetuated the struggle. Peace can come about only when we secure a momentary state of affairs from violent disturbance and make every future change depend upon the consent of the person involved. This is the real significance of the protection of existing rights, which constitutes the kernel of all Law.
This is a broken representation, perhaps animated by pious fraud but broken nevertheless. Law is not here to make peace, nor can it be judged by how "much" peace it makes, nor does it in fact make peace in preference of war or violence. Law is strictly here to make conflict meaningful, it's the rouge on the stripper's nipples. Not there to prevent nudity, strictly there to make the nudity more easily perceived in the dark, distant, cheap seats, even if what's perceived there in fact is not the actual nudity but just a mark upon it, merely there for the very purpose of being seen. A surrogate nudity, the symbolic nudity of the colored wax, supported and shaped by the subiacent nudity of the woman's nipple, but not exactly equal to it.
Otherwise, no consent is required by those whose fortunes are currently being diminished so that my Bitcoin holdings can nominally increase. No consent was obtained by those holding railroad stock from they whose property was diminished by the economic change railroads wrought. No consent is required generally whenever violence can neatly resolve the problems at hand, consent only becomes an issue when no readily available violence exists (which is to say, when the plan contemplated isn't really good enough to carry on its own). As such, the protection of the law strictly protects the victors from any attempts of the defeated to lie about their defeat, misrepresent it as some sort of "alternative victory" and so forth, as theoretically discussed in the previous paragraph. The law, basically, is there to force the failed buggy factory out of business once the car factory is done raping its trade, and to force Obama out of office and his ideas out of the public forum once the treasury is truely and completely exhausted.i———
- And in this particular case, the notion that law can't work against government - a more general restatement of the very amusing "a state can never default because just like a company can always satisfy a warrant for its own stock, so can any state issue more of its own currency to pay any comers" - is nothing but trying to get drunk on water. Of course it can work against government. It does it all the time. [↩]