WHILST reaching a consensus makes for a more harmonious society, I believe that laws and contracts betray a fundamental lack of trust. They go far beyond what used to be known as a ‘gentleman’s agreement’ in the sense that codified rules and regulations determine the level of one’s participation in the game. Laws are therefore based on predetermined behaviour and insist that an individual suppress or restrict the authentic traits of his or her character. That is not to say that people should not be free to abide by laws if they so desire, and I’ve always believed that communities are more stable if they are based on a unifying idea of some kind, but the coming into being of these regulatory practices tells us less about the perils of prospective ‘criminality’ than about the paranoid nature of modern civilisation.

Take the endless profusion of songs and poems that comprise our ancestral folk-heritage, for example, they demonstrate very clearly that societies were centred along profoundly oral lines and things were rarely written down at all. It was the Ancient Hebrews, in particular, who discovered the true power of the written word and this enabled them to control and monopolise both the Judaic belief system and, ultimately, the day-to-day conduct of their own people. In later centuries, of course, organised Christianity used this theological blueprint as a convenient means to flex its own hermeneutical muscles. It was thought that speech, symbolism and handshakes were not enough to enforce a particular point of view.

Singing from the same hymn sheet, in other words, whether in religion, politics or business, means that the outcome has already been determined. Change the script and there is hell to pay. Quite literally, in the case of the former. Covenants, holy texts and pension plans each denote where compliant historiography begins and personal initiative is dashed on the rocks like a ship with a broken rudder. Modern existence, itself geared towards consumerism and taxation, is heavily reliant upon that which is considered either ‘legal’ or ‘unlawful’ and transgression inevitably comes with consequences of its own.

Conversely, as those who have formed alternative communities that operate outside the Matrix have discovered, projects of this kind offer people the opportunity to reach a consensus with others of like mind. They are non-coercive and free-spirited in the sense that members can simply down tools and walk away at any time. If there is no trust, then there is no real cohesion or solidarity. If things are written in stone, so to speak, there can be no flexibility whatsoever. Refusing to budge from previously established parameters stifles the ability to satisfy common needs. As Pierre-Joseph Proudhon (1809-1865) once said:

“Laws: We know what they are, and what they are worth! They are spider webs for the rich and mighty, steel chains for the poor and weak, fishing nets in the hands of government.”

At one time, pragmatic lawlessness was the way of the world. For many of us, it still is.