All public laws and policies shall be subject to the following two standards:

1. The law/policy must provide more benefits than detriments to citizens.

2. The law/policy must not injure an innocent person.

A person shall be operationally defined to be an individual who is born and residing within a legal jurisdiction.

Thomas Jefferson once said thus: The essence of the law is that no man should injure another; all the rest is commentary.

An injury shall be operationally defined to be a detriment including but not limited to a loss of life, limb or property.

An innocent man is operationally defined to be a person who does not intend to injure another person who does not intend to injure him or any other innocent persons.

Rephrasing Jefferson's quote: The essence of the law is the no man should [be allowed to] injure another [innocent man]; all the rest [of the law] is commentary.

Jefferson's Essence of the Law is a better standard for evaluating public laws and policies than the Golden Rule of many religions: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Also: Do not do unto others as you would not have them do unto you.

Jefferson's Essence of the Law focuses upon the concept of injury to an innocent person and the principle that an innocent person should not be injured, and when an innocent person is defined as a person who does not intend to injure another person who does not intend to injure him then the concept/principle of injury as a loss of life, limb or property has a clear and concise meaning that cannot be corrupted.

The Golden Rule can be corrupted thus: Do unto others as you wish, and if they cannot do unto you as they wish, then you win.

The corruption of the Golden Rule is exemplified by the corruption of the 23rd Psalm: Yea, though I walk through the Valley of the Shadom of Death I will fear no Evil, for Thou art with me ... by the following: Yea, though I walk through the Valley of the Shadow of Death, I will fear no Evil, for I am the meanest ____ in the Valley!

Thus, a public law or policy by Standard #1 must produce a benefit [with minimum detriments] but by Standard #2 no innocent citizen can be defined to be a criminal and to suffer therefore injuries to life, limb or property.

Example: Anti-gun laws creating safety zones around schools. These laws will not produce benefits to citizens because they will not prevent criminals from violating the laws when they intend to injure innocent people and these laws will injure innocent citizens when even though lawfully entitled to carry personal firearms and are otherwise on peaceable missions they--the innocent citizens--venture too close to a school and thus enter into a school safety zone. No innocent person should be injured by being arrested and prosecuted for carrying a personal firearm while on a peaceable mission. Thus, by Standard #1 and Standard #2 such anti-gun school safety zone laws are ineffective and therefore of negative value and should never be enacted and if enacted should be repealed.

Thus, the two standards for evaluating public laws and policies should become legal standards by which all public laws and policies are to be evaluated, accepted, enacted, and implemented.

1. The law/policy must provide more benefits than detriments to citizens.

2. The law/policy must not injure an innocent person.