Fundamentals of Law

If you agree with a law, then you don't need the law. It's your local more or custom and the responsibility for enforcing it falls, directly or indirectly, on you.

If you don't agree with a law, it's a tyrannical imposition and therefore not civilized. You should either become a refugee or violently overthrow the tyrant.

Your intuition may be pinging you, and if so it's probably this: in practice you do laws in bundles. You don't agree with every law, but you agree with the bundle as a whole. If you think about it you'll see this is a mere superposition of a system of copies of what I said above.

Be a real non-leftist and recall inegalitarianism. Vengeance is indeed the lords: the local lord's, because commoners are too stupid and emotional to be cooperators. Real Law is what you get when a Judge speaks. A Judge is a kind of a person, not a kind of job. It's something you're born with, not something you train for. It's called a king's court because it's ruled by a Judge, at least in Borean lands. (Neglecting bastards and usurpers for the moment.) Perhaps distant peoples cannot into this clearly superior system, and for them, my condolences. Feel free to continue as you are, if Gnon wills.

Common Law (the real article not the Satanist skinsuit) is merely the collection of things Judges say about events. Judges agree with each other about their Judgments; that's what having good judgment means.

When commoners have a dispute they should involve the local lord, or, if suffering under kinglessness, the local authorities. When lords have a dispute it is their own responsibility. 

You don't abide by a Judge's judgement because they'll tan your hide if you don't. You abide by it because it's correct, and Gnon will tan your hide if you don't. But mainly, even if it's not totally correct, you'll have to declare war if you don't. The Judge needs no power except the power of discernment. If you or your opponent choose not to abide by the ruling - which every Judge heartily allows, as in they're not a Judge if they don't - you're welcome to put the question to a test of arms. Go ahead and fight instead, if you want. For a simple reason: Judges do agree, but Judges are still human and make mistakes. When a mistake is made, the backup plan is to fight it out. 

If you can't fight it out, then what you're upholding isn't Law, it's Tyranny. Even with the most "benevolent" Diktator, mistakes will be made. Travesties will accumulate. More likely, the Diktator wanted to be a Tyrant precisely because, like Gaius Kaisar, he's a Law-breaker and consciously wishes an imprimatur for his unjust decisions.  

You must see to your own security for the simple reason that nobody else cares. If you do not secure yourself, you will not be secure. Nobody will do it for you, for the same reason you have nobody to wipe your ass for you.

No peasants read this blog. In a real country, which respects Judges and thus respects Law, peasants would be encouraged to pay a lord to lead them. It's fine if they don't, because they will be shot to death in a stupid dispute if they choose unwisely, praise be to Gnon. This trash would clean itself up.

 

P.S. You could say I'm not the Bible's biggest fan. Nevertheless Satan was not omnipotent and couldn't completely purify the text.
"Judges 17:6 is in effect: every man should do what is right in his own eyes."
https://graymirror.substack.com/p/a-new-theory-of-constitutional-cynicism

A just law package honourably states that peasants should look to their lord. The peasant agrees with this package. Yes, indeed, Judges 17:6 appears to have been written by a Judge. (Sadly this is something of a coincidence.) If the peasant doesn't agree, he can, as with the Amish, choose to leave the community rather than subjugate himself to the package. It's wildly unjust to chain a peasant to either land or lord without the peasant's own prior consent. 

Can you think of something you would trade [being chained to the land] to obtain? It's hardly impossible to write this contract.