STO: Well meant and unintentional slavery

[Steppingfeet]

Here Ra states the the "intention of law" is to protect. To protect something, I presume, in genera, involves the stoppage of one entities free will in order to preserve another entity's free will.

What if said protection was originally intended by the self toward the other, rather than the reverse? For example, as a healer/physician one might swear to an oath to abide by a certain sort of conduct. By taking this oath, it might grant a certain protection to the people against charlatanism.

Great example of this principle, I would say. And in a non-veiled situation, this oath wouldn't be necessary.

--An entity makes a unique product. They wish to have their work protected from infringement. They receive a patent prohibiting the will of other entities who may wish to duplicate the product for their own gain.

The inventor's free will is protected, the will of the entity intending infringement is stopped.

Why would said entity feel that it is an infringement to have their work duplicated by others? And why would said entity feel they have an exclusive right to gain from such a contribution?

The inventor's will may have many motivations, including pure service-to-others, but likely in the mix of motivations is the desire for livelihood, or in the event of larger institutional entities, pure profit and market-share.

The "why's" are many, it would seem, and law in general feels that it is fair to the protect the inventor/creator vs. the other individual or group who would duplicate the inventor/creator's work. Would you agree?

Doesn't Entity A continue to live despite what actions Entity B may take toward their body?

Let me rephrase that then to indicate Entity A's continued enjoyment of his/her current physical incarnation in the third-density illusion. : )

I wonder: If there were no veil, would the whole notion of "protecting" the self from other-self make any sense?

I agree. So much of our third-density experience, legal code and the desire to protect included, is predicated upon the existence of the veil.

I also wonder: Even if we allow for the defense of one's own body or intentions against the actions of another- by what principle does it make sense to assign the responsibility for self-protection to a third party?

Such a question and the one that followed it is beyond the scope of my simple post. : ) I leave it for better minds. (Being sincere.)

With the veil, and subsequent confusion regarding the true nature of the self, inevitably follows law, it would seem, because entities in their confusion seek to infringe upon the free will of others. At base then the spirit of the law is to protect from infringement.

I wonder if- in a very literal sense- the law is a physical manifestation of the veil. I don't seem to be able to identify a legal concept which is not predicated upon the separation of self and other.

My rough guess would be that law is not a physical manifestation in the way that mountains are a physical manifestation of plate tectonics, or wind is a physical manifestation of the equalization of warm and cold fronts, or cancer is a physical manifestation of anger. Rather I would call law a manifestation of culture - that invisible domain within which peoples relate to one another and form collective identities.