Do you remember playing “Simon Says” as a child?

For those who didn’t, it’s essentially a basic game where one person dictates what others must do.

Each command must be prefixed with the phrase “Simon says…”

I think most folks would agree, one of the most challenging features of the game, is having three or more things in the list of what one must do at a given time.

Now imagine having to live within the laws of a given entity.

You can be certain there are a good deal more than three laws at any level under which one finds oneself in the “real world.”

It’s hard to nail down just how many laws (forget regulations, rules, or other such things) can be counted active just on the national level here in the United States.

If I were a betting man—and I suppose I am in some senses—I would make the argument the rest of the World finds itself in essentially the same predicament as we do here, by the way.

I’ve seen estimates between 30,000 and 300,000 laws on the books on the federal level. Even on the low end, that number would be completely impossible for a given person—frankly even a well-read legal scholar—to keep.

And the fact is, it’s beyond doubt there are edicts on the books, that directly contradict one another.

Add to this the idea of precedent, and things become infinitely more complex; one might argue entirely untenable.

Do things sound bad by this point? They’re about to get substantially worse!

The federal legal system is just the beginning.

There are state laws, county and city ordinances, and even rules imposed on other municipal levels we haven’t even yet considered.

You can imagine that, by the time all is said and done, you’re supposedly beholden to something along the lines of hundreds of thousands—if not millions—of government statements of requirement.

This doesn’t even consider various rules that aren’t enacted into law (things like regulations put in place by entities like the Department of Energy, or of Education, or similar).

Putting things in a nutshell, we’ve long since come to a point where most people more or less just ignore the existence of so much of that to which they’re supposedly required to adhere.

And who could blame them for so doing? Folks can’t help but understand they could barely play Simon Says on even the simplest, lowest level one might imagine—forget on that required to meet all required mandates carved in tablets of stone on various levels in the U.S. and elsewhere.

It seems it cannot be more obvious what’s needed. We must come up with mechanisms to pare things to which folks are beholden down to a “dull roar” at the very least.

The afore stated considered, I want folks to understand what I’m not saying.

I’m not saying we should do away with all that currently exists in terms of present “legal framework.”

There are things we must have in place.

Is it reasonable, for example, to kill outside of definite acceptable exceptions?

I think most would argue it’s not.

Should we have a right to possess things we may count our own without fear of others taking them from us barring specific, encoded cause?

Again, I would assume the majority would assent to such an idea.

Furthermore, without a new, well-considered framework in place, trashing that which exists would be a horrible idea.

Nailing things down, I’m suggesting only that where we find ourselves at present cannot be allowed to continue in the long run.

We’re well past time when what we have no longer “works as initially designed.”

Again, that doesn’t mean we can just crumple it up and toss it out.

Here’s the funny thing.

It’s been many years since I’ve counted myself beholden to the “law of the land.”

Rather, I consider myself responsible to “higher law.”

I’m not saying I don’t end up following earthly requirements. Simply that doing so is incidental to my allegiance to that which is above them.

What you should take away from this is, I don’t tend to spend my days worrying what the law at various levels says I ought, or ought not, do.

If I’m unwilling to do a thing as a matter of conscience—or conversely required to do something on that basis—I act according to that fact.

You might be asking, “That being true, why do you care about the plethora of existing statutes which folks must supposedly keep?”

You might even question why I support the idea of Earthly law at all.

The reason is simple. Where people like myself are beholden to a “Higher Power,” a good many individuals are not.

It’s for such folks that law exists in the first place.

Considering those folks need direction of that type, it should seem sensible that making a jumble of requirements to which they must cling is not a good plan.

If nothing else, they’re offered an excuse for ignoring rules they don’t “like” when you put them in that place.

After all, if they can’t be expected to live within all of the boundaries set for them, is it unreasonable to say, “Oh, I wasn’t aware of that particular wall’s existence.”?

I’ve said in past, and repeat now, I am not some sort of oracle. I may well be able to identify problems. That by no means indicates I can solve that which I see to be at issue.

Boiling things down. We have serious issues with the legal system as it now stands. Primary among them, is the existence of a gigantic tangled mass of potentially conflicting rules.

I’m not smart enough to say how this should, maybe even could be fixed. Nonetheless, fix it we must.

If you have some method or methods by which we might achieve this end, I’m all ears!

More importantly, if you’re able to cause such to be implemented—assuming your solution to be a good one—more power to you!

At the very least, each of us should be considering how this conundrum should, or at least can, be assuaged.

As usual, here’s hoping you’re well. If not, I pray you become so in the near future.