That is simply not true — god must be atheist

I am able to make my original claim that existing language of law is not determinative of human conduct because Spinoza and Sartre have shown that all determination is negation, i.e., that no given, existing, present state of affairs, since it is what it is, an identity A=A, it cannot get out of itself in order to act upon a human being in order to accomplish a particular end. It is my understanding that all positivist determinists who think that language of law is a determinative force among men are deluded, and, they have not studied Spinoza, or Sartre, or lack the intellectual instrumentation to fathom what Spinoza has given mankind. I am attempting to put Spinoza and Sartre into the simplest possible language, which is extraordinarily difficult, although, I do think that my one page description of the actual mode of origin of human action achieves the end I desire, i.e., relative simplicity in explaining to people that all intentional action and inaction upsurge in the world only via negation, i.e., via lack, absence, need, desideratum...

You still decide to abide by the law though. — Echarmion

To "abide by the law" is actually to do absolutely nothing whatsoever. I can name particular nothings which I am doing; e.g., I am not murdering someone; however, that doing nothing of murder is not ascribable to the state of affairs wherein law prohibits murder, it is merely that I am simply doing nothing, which is a negative action. When I am not doing murder I am intentionally not doing murder, which intentional negative act is not ascribable to a law which prohibits murder, for I am just plain doing nothing...

My positive acts all have an originative upsurge out of nothingness; for example, I recently needed to learn how to properly quote a member. That need to find out how to correctly respond was a negative structure, that is, a lack, an absence, a desideratum; and it is desideratum which is the originative determinative efficacy whereby I performed the acts of searching the site until I discovered the requisite technique.

Echarmion, I find a good deal of your responses essentially impossible for me to respond to, but I will continue to reflect upon those responses until, perhaps, I can respond...

Echarmion, Clearly I have absolutely no idea what the quote and reply functions are. Where does one find them on this site ? I will postpone my replies to your comments until I learn the correct way to do so...Duane

Terrapin, That statement is purely mine as an original Duane assertion; the title as well; and, several other statements which I enunciated...
Duane

"That's not what the term "rule of law" means." Echarmion
"rule of law", a phrase, not a word, has a vast and some think an almost indeterminate meaning, and, is commonly held to mean that our civilization is predicated upon all persons therein being ruled and ruling themselves by law(s).

"No-one who has given the matter some though assumes that laws somehow determine human actions.'' Echarmion
The magistrate who passes sentence upon persons will tell you that he is bound and determined by law to do so; I was once in traffic court when the judge informed me precisely that he is bound and determined by law to do that which he has just informed me of...

"A law is not a state of affairs." Echarmion
That assertion strikes me as a bit silly; everything, even nothing, is a state of affairs !