Reactionary adaptive planning of the law has also been called weaponization, and latelyI have used the term live law in a similar sense.  This situation is an economy-scale type of functioning. It is meant to protect investors from losing their shirt and to protect the owners of businesses who obtained their ideas fraudulently.   For example, a company may be forced to close to retain the earnings and wealth that its owners have accumulated.  It seems like it’s a club-like concept.   Say, for example, Amazon was someone else’s idea. In the big picture, the economic controller can create conditions that cause the company to go out of business, thereby keeping the wealth in the hands of the previous owners and all the investors. I called the situation ‘live law’ in a reactive, adaptive way.   It may have something to do with politics as well, but I’m not sure.   Anyway, these situations force a concept of Control above all else, no matter the law.   Malfeasance can be anything from polluting the reputation of a company to causing violence, making the company responsible for that violence.  Another method is to intensify competition within the corporation by implementing an ultra-competitive strategy, thereby enabling it to compete with Amazon or other companies.  These situations truly render the law useless in our current world. What comes to these situations?   My hypothesis is unnerving because it allows reactionary, adaptive planning, weaponization, and live law and reaction, in an ultra-competitive way to compete, even if it means using violence.   Remember, weaponization, reaction, adaptive planning, and live law with reactionary adaptive planning methodology can’t be applied to research, events, news, the Bible, crime, blotters, or anything else beyond the imagination.  These concepts, when employed, are meant to cause a win-at-all-costs atmosphere using the imposition of literal, figurative, and imagined borders and boundaries, often creating alternative blame games.

I have observed concerning developments within our legal and economic landscapes that warrant careful consideration. What I’ve termed “adaptive legal maneuvering” or “dynamic legislative calibration” appears to be transforming into a system that some might describe as the “weaponization” of legal and regulatory frameworks. This phenomenon operates at an economy-of-scale level, suggesting a systemic rather than isolated occurrence.

The primary objective of these sophisticated strategies seems twofold: first, to insulate established investors from potential losses, and second, to safeguard the wealth and holdings of business owners, even in cases where the genesis of their ideas or enterprises might be ethically ambiguous. It fosters what could be perceived as an exclusive “club” mentality. Consider, for instance, a scenario where a dominant economic entity orchestrates conditions that lead to the downfall of a thriving business. This could be designed to ensure that the accumulated wealth and earnings remain concentrated in the hands of the original founders and investors, rather than being dispersed or lost in a competitive market. This dynamic often gives the impression that the system is manipulated to serve an overriding agenda of control, irrespective of the spirit or even the letter of the law.

Such practices can manifest in various forms of corporate malfeasance. This might include deliberate efforts to tarnish a company’s reputation through targeted campaigns, or, in more extreme circumstances, indirectly engineering or exploiting volatile situations that can be attributed to a competitor, thereby making them responsible for the resulting fallout. Another tactic involves deploying “ultra-competitive methodologies” within established corporations to outmaneuver burgeoning competitors, not merely through innovation or market efficiency, but by creating an unlevel playing field. This effectively renders traditional legal protections and fair competition principles largely ineffectual in our contemporary economic environment.  It also diverts attention from real reasons for a company going out of business to the manufactured reasons.

My hypothesis regarding these trends is disquieting. It suggests that this environment of adaptive legal maneuvering and weaponization enables a form of aggressive, hyper-competitive strategy that prioritizes victory at any cost. This can extend to situations where conventional ethical boundaries, factual evidence, established legal precedent, or even societal norms are disregarded. The ultimate goal appears to be the creation of an atmosphere where strategic advantage, even through morally questionable means, is paramount, fostering a “win at all costs” mentality.

Richard Thomas Simmons