I appreciate your candor sir, though I assure you I speak of the very foundation of a “righteous rule of law.” One which serves to protect the innocent from vi

I appreciate your candor sir, though I assure you I speak of the very foundation of a “righteous rule of law.” One which serves to protect the innocent from violation by will or neglect. That (along with “principled upon Truth”) might be the definition of “the spirit of law.” Or a “right of lawful recourse” to respond to such trespasses. All of this only comes by a destructive interference upon one persons (or embodiment before law) by another. The perhaps cringey bare minimal trifling koan is the truest of rights of an individual (or collective) of any kind. And I by no means think modern man has gotten this completely right. You see, the state is your encompassing domain, and domains are like onions. While each layer may make you cry, each is a concession or social contract which obligates you to the inconvenience of the state’s necessities (like “public well being.”) Not being interfered with is a built in right of our America domain, however compromised by the complexity of our modern relationships with state and each other.