A Structure for Prime Law Enforcement Without Authoritarianism: A Proposal

By Edwin M. Basye

Introduction

The Prime Law, as presented in The Superpuzzle and other works by Mark Hamilton, is a radical restructuring of society based on a single, absolute principle:

“No person, group, or government may initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against any individual.”

This core law eliminates the need for thousands of statutes, regulations, and subjective rulings. But how can such a law be enforced without creating centralized power or an authoritarian legal structure? This article proposes how the Prime Law system can prevent government overreach, eliminate judicial tyranny, decentralize legal power, and maintain justice through logic—not authority. It focuses on the judiciary structural design, so a future article or articles will be needed to address the issue of physical enforcement.

I. The Core Principle: No Initiatory Force

The Prime Law is absolute, objective, and not open to interpretation. Its simplicity ensures that:

• All government action must be reactive only—to stop or respond to force or fraud.
• Any action not aligned with this principle is illegitimate and itself a violation of the law.
• No political ideology, religion, or cultural preference can override it.

The result is a society where law is no longer an instrument of control, but a protective boundary around individual sovereignty.

II. No Traditional Judges — Only Logic Facilitators

In a Prime Law system, traditional judges do not exist.

Judges, by their nature, concentrate interpretive and enforcement power—violating the decentralization goal of the Prime Law. Instead, their role is replaced by a Logic Facilitator, whose function is entirely procedural and non-ruling.

The Logic Facilitator:

• Explains the Prime Law and ensures its correct literal application.
• Prevents logical fallacies and manipulative tactics during court proceedings.
• Cannot issue verdicts, interpret law, or overrule juries.
• Serves as a referee of reason, not a decision-maker.

This role is strictly time-limited, fully audited, and open to citizen review—eliminating career power consolidation.

III. Jury-Centric Adjudication

All cases—civil or criminal—are decided by logic-qualified citizen juries.

Key Features of Jury Selection:

• Jurors must pass a publicly vetted logic test to ensure basic rational competency.
• The test is non-political, open-source, and reviewed by peer citizens through a Council for Logic Integrity (CLI).
• Selection is randomized from the qualified pool to prevent ideological filtering.

Juries evaluate whether initiatory force or fraud occurred. Verdicts must be unanimous, reinforcing both the seriousness of state action and the presumption of freedom.

IV. Appeals Without Hierarchies

Are appeals allowed? Yes — but only under strict conditions.

• Only the accused or convicted individual may appeal (not the state).
• Appeals are heard by a new jury, not by a higher court or judge.
• There is no legal hierarchy—no Supreme Court, no precedent-setting.
• Appeals are only permitted where procedural or logical errors can be shown.

This prevents an elite legal class from forming, while still allowing the correction of genuine errors.

Double Jeopardy:

• Once acquitted, a person cannot be tried again for the same act.
• The only exception: if the original trial is proven to have involved fraud or corruption, in which case the entire trial is nullified as force-initiating in itself.

V. Civil and Criminal Cases Under the Prime Law

Under this structure, both civil and criminal cases are treated with the same Prime Law filter: did one party initiate force or fraud against another?

Allowed Cases:

• Physical harm or damage
• Fraudulent contracts or deception
• Coercive exploitation or manipulation

Disallowed Cases:

• Victimless "crimes" (e.g., consensual drug use)
• Subjective emotional harms (e.g., offense, insult)
• Ideological or moral infractions (e.g., religious violations)

All legal disputes must show objective harm via coercion, deception, or force to be admissible.

VI. The Logic Council: CLI

To maintain the integrity of the system, a non-ruling, publicly accountable body provides logic tools, including:

• Jury qualification assessments
• Logic protocols for courtrooms
• Bias checklists and reasoning aids

CLI Safeguards:

• No authority to rule, regulate, or enforce.
• All tools and standards are public domain and citizen-reviewable.
• No funding from the state or political entities.
• CLI members are volunteers and do not get compensated.
• All updates are peer-reviewed and posted for open challenge.

It is, by design, a scientific publishing body, not a legal institution.

VII. Structural Safeguards Against Corruption

VIII. The Default to Freedom

A foundational safeguard:

If a jury cannot unanimously agree that initiatory force occurred, the state cannot act.

There is no “better safe than sorry” rationale in Prime Law jurisprudence. Force cannot be used without objective proof, because initiating force without certainty is itself a crime.

This flips the modern state assumption: rather than needing permission to be free, you are free unless proven otherwise—beyond a reasonable doubt, and by unanimous consent.

Conclusion

The Prime Law system offers not just a legal structure, but a philosophical shift: from rule by authority to protection by logic applied by a jury of peers.

It achieves what democracy often promises but rarely delivers:

• Decentralized power
• Immutable individual rights
• A state that exists only to protect, never to control

By removing the levers of coercion—judges, bureaucracies, interpretive courts, moral legislation—the Prime Law offers a clean-slate framework for a truly free civilization.