The main objections to these four assertions can be summed up as a doubt on the efficiency of using threats of reprisals and segregation as punishments, as a doubt on the efficiency of segregated settlements in regards to the spontaneous imposition and maintenance of rules of justice, and as a doubt upon the wisdom of developing a "Thelemic police". All this in the light of that which in this essay is called Organic Coherence.
Also, the rule suggested in the third assertion, appears to be an irrelevant echo of the old, savage logic of "Eye for an eye".
Aleister Crowley gives no clue on how he envisions the settlements to function. Done in the right way, it might perhaps work – by bringing up the question, the mind is trained to understand the concept, and this might bring it closer to realization. Another good question, is how we, in an imagined Thelemic State, can be efficient in analyzing the actions of criminals, in order to make themselves see their own unwillingness of breaking the code of Liber Oz. Could prisons develop into educational institutions? Would that be the way to go, in order to attain that reintegration of Conscience on true scientific principles, that Crowley speaks of? About the training of "men of uprightness and discretion"...could it be worth considering to give everybody that training, if they asked for it? It would at least redefine the concept "Police State".
What about the rule in the third assertion? Does Crowley, forgetfully contradicting himself, use the logic of "Eye for an eye"? I do not pretend to have knowledge or understanding even near that of aleister crowley when it comes to cosmic law – but neither can I pretend to have blind faith in assertions 2, 3, 5, 7, just because they were made by him. It should be mentioned, that "Duty:C&P" is not the only place where the rule of assertion 3 is used; elsewhere he states, "My retort, however, is convincing and final. Robbery in any shape is a breach of the Law of Thelema. It is interference with the right of another to dispose of his property as he will; and if I did so myself, no matter with what tactical justification, I could hardly ask others to respect my own similar right. (The basis of our criminal law is simple, by virtue of Thelema: to violate the right of another is to forfeit one's claim to protection in the matter involved.)"
This was a returning viewpoint of his and not just something that he accidentally wrote in "Duty:C&P". In regards to the Thelemic State, it could be that Thelema is unsuitable for, or not "meant to be" a doctrine for the forming of a State in a juridical sense at all. Crowley thought that it was, though, and for that reason, the Thelemic community will have to have some kind of relationship to that idea.
Free eBooks (Can Be Downloaded):
Kathryn Rountree - Embracing The Witch And The GoddessJohn Ronald Tolkien - Introduction To The Elder Edda
Aleister Crowley - Temperance A Tract For The Times
Ea Wallis Budge - The Egyptian Book Of The Dead