NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm wondering what people here think of the term "law". Many US conservatives here for example bring it up in relation to immigration and illegal immigrants. To many here speeding on public roads is bad, and the number one argument is "it's against the law".

Yet those same people would generally be okay with the protests in Burma right now, even though those guys are of course openly breaking the law. Of course, that's not a democracy. But the US had persecution of gays and racial discrimination enshrined by law, and just because Burma's junta is not democratic might not make it right in your view to ignore their law against murder.

So what is law, where does it come from, what makes it legitimate? How do you choose which laws to follow and which to ignore? How do you decide whether a law is right or wrong? If you think so, what is special about law that makes it more than simply someone with a gun telling you to do one thing and not do another?

Law is the social contract that we all agree to abide by so that our society doesn't implode in on itself. The only laws that matter are the ones that people are willing to enforce and obey.

Law is the social contract that we all agree to abide by so that our society doesn't implode in on itself. The only laws that matter are the ones that people are willing to enforce and obey.
So, have you ever broken a law? Have you ever gone faster than the speed limit? Had a drink before you were of legal age? Shoplifted? Had a fight with someone and hurt them? Cheated on a tax return?

Don't these laws matter? Do they matter to others who are willing to always obey them but not to you?

And the same could be asked from the other angle. If some politician runs over someone, but the police ends up dropping the case for political reasons (ie is unwilling to enforce the law), does that mean the law no longer matters?

There is a very long and boring book by Ronald Dworkin called Law's Empire which answers all of these questions. (Not that he is necessarily correct, of course).

But in answer to your immediate question, I think most people take a sort of John Austin view to the law - with the codicil that it is only their law which is valid.

None of which really helps you.

There is a very long and boring book by Ronald Dworkin called Law's Empire which answers all of these questions. (Not that he is necessarily correct, of course).
I can't say I've read it. Some research on Dworkin reveals though that he's got his critics too, and that his approach to law may to some extent be governed by his economic egalitarianism, him wasting time thinking about positive liberty (in my view the last thing the law should be concerned with) and his refusal to apply any of his theory to issues that might actually need solving right now.

Still, always good to answer more titles to that "to read" list. Maybe I'll have the time once I retire...

But in answer to your immediate question, I think most people take a sort of John Austin view to the law - with the codicil that it is only their law which is valid.

None of which really helps you.
Well, if we could get that as a general understanding, it would shut down the illegal immigration debate quite nicely, for example. If there is no moral backing for law whatsoever, people will have to quit talking about moral issues in terms of legality, or the lack of it - in general and not just a few cases of their choosing.

I'm wondering what people here think of the term "law". Many US conservatives here for example bring it up in relation to immigration and illegal immigrants. To many here speeding on public roads is bad, and the number one argument is "it's against the law".

Yet those same people would generally be okay with the protests in Burma right now, even though those guys are of course openly breaking the law. Of course, that's not a democracy. But the US had persecution of gays and racial discrimination enshrined by law, and just because Burma's junta is not democratic might not make it right in your view to ignore their law against murder.

So what is law, where does it come from, what makes it legitimate? How do you choose which laws to follow and which to ignore? How do you decide whether a law is right or wrong? If you think so, what is special about law that makes it more than simply someone with a gun telling you to do one thing and not do another?
They will argue that law under democratic countries is essentially an abstraction of the social contract given that the government is elected by society, and said government writes the laws. This premise is hopelessly broken, mind you, but that is where this will end up.

The Law is the mechanism a state uses to justify or validate it's application of force. That is all.

Hehe. I'm torn between Socrates and Godwin.

I can't say I've read it. Some research on Dworkin reveals though that he's got his critics too, and that his approach to law may to some extent be governed by his economic egalitarianism, him wasting time thinking about positive liberty (in my view the last thing the law should be concerned with) and his refusal to apply any of his theory to issues that might actually need solving right now.

Still, always good to answer more titles to that "to read" list. Maybe I'll have the time once I retire...

The first two thirds of the book where he develops the idea of what makes a valid law are quite cogent and without reference to his underlying political or economic bias. So in the sense of the question you are asking, I think you would find it satisfying; if not without error. The criticisms you are are referring to really more apply to his application of his own theory rather than the theory itself.

Well, if we could get that as a general understanding, it would shut down the illegal immigration debate quite nicely, for example. If there is no moral backing for law whatsoever, people will have to quit talking about moral issues in terms of legality, or the lack of it - in general and not just a few cases of their choosing.

Not really. It would depend upon your view of morality in that case. For many people their personal view of morality could include the duty to follow a valid law, whether or not they personally agree with it, as paramount. Dudley Dooright types.

And of course, John Austin's valid laws are made without reference to morality.

Insofar as we are obligated to obey law, rather than simply to obey what seems right to us, we are so obligated because we recognize the danger of personal biases and limited perspective, and of the ways pursuit of personal, private desires can harm the public good.

Because we know that we ourselves, as biased, limited individuals, are not capable alone of deciding what is best for everyone (especially as pertains to decisions that affect us, where our biases are especially prominent), instead we give obedience to an "objective" authority whose foundation in collective decision-making and whose system of third-party arbitration enables it to abstract (at least to a degree) from individual biases. This is the social contract, viewed from a moral perspective rather than a selfish one: we give up the right to judge in our own case (in our relations with others, not necessarily in "victimless" behavior only affecting us) because we recognize our own flaws. (The alternative would be something to the effect of "we give up the right to judge in our case in return for the benefit we gain from others giving up the right to judge in their own cases"--a basis that I find questionable, because the possibility always exists that we can sneak some violations on the side, without our fellow contractors realizing that we have broken it.)

We may--we almost certainly will--disagree, at times, with what it decides to do. But because we recognize the value of the process, and must recall the limitations and vulnerabilities of our judgment, we respect its decisions.

There are, however, some limitations. The first is democratic participation: the system is only legitimate insofar as it is "objective", insofar as it represents the interests of everyone. If some people are disenfranchised, there is no reason to expect that the system will fairly take their welfare into account; some people are ruling over others, with all the faults of exclusive decision-making that the system is intended to correct for in the first place, and such a government, insofar as it is not democratic, is also not worthy of obedience.

The second is equality under law: again, the system is only legitimate insofar as it prevents exclusive power. If it is instead perverted by a majority ("majority" assumed because under the first condition we are speaking of democracy, but conceivably minority as well) to oppress and deny the rights of a minority, once again some people are ruling over others, and such a government, insofar as it does not respect the equality of its citizens, is not worthy of obedience.

As a third, I would suggest the vague criterion of "egregiousness": if an action by the government is so egregiously wrong or stupid as to make its opposition justified with near-certainty, to say that we are obligated to respect such a decision stretches the logic behind political obedience to the point of absurdity.

The law is the authority because the government can put people in jail. Anyone can say something is morally wrong and even take the law into their own hands and punish someone else. But if they break the government's law by doing so and the government finds out then they are in trouble. In the end it's the government's law that counts because they have the power.

The laws that agree with your personal morals are right in your opinion and the ones that disagree are wrong in your opinion. But even if you think it's ok to break a particular law doesn't mean your opinion counts. It's only when enough people disagree and care enough to force a change that disagreeing with the government counts. Even dictatorships needs to be if not supported at least silently accepted by the majority of the people or else they will be forced to change.

Law is the social contract that we all agree to abide by so that our society doesn't implode in on itself. The only laws that matter are the ones that people are willing to enforce and obey.

The so called "law" is not "a social contract", because societies -- being mere vectors of collective individuals' forces draft no contracts.

A small, irrelevant part of those societies that has hijacked the avenues of coercive mechanisms (police, army, courts... whatnot, and first and foremost parliaments of the so-called "states", i.e. "countries") makes these laws at their whim.

People are born into "states" in which "laws" exist and that means that you do not enter any contracts (which would imply volition, individual judgment etc.), but are put in the cage of these enorceable norms.

Perhaps that is for the greater common good -- though it is very debatable.

On the other hand, those same societies have many other characteristics -- often much more important than the so-called "laws" that define them closer and more fully. Therefore "law" is an accidental characteristic imanent to organised groups of individuals the communality of whose forces results in the vector of the abstract so-called societies.

I'm wondering what people here think of the term "law". Many US conservatives here for example bring it up in relation to immigration and illegal immigrants. To many here speeding on public roads is bad, and the number one argument is "it's against the law".

Yet those same people would generally be okay with the protests in Burma right now, even though those guys are of course openly breaking the law. Of course, that's not a democracy. But the US had persecution of gays and racial discrimination enshrined by law, and just because Burma's junta is not democratic might not make it right in your view to ignore their law against murder.

So what is law, where does it come from, what makes it legitimate? How do you choose which laws to follow and which to ignore? How do you decide whether a law is right or wrong? If you think so, what is special about law that makes it more than simply someone with a gun telling you to do one thing and not do another?

"Law"---as we know it to be---is a human invention that has no real-world application aside from giving the state the ability to punish those who "break" it after the fact. The only "laws" to which we are subject are our own individual laws. "Laws" as we have come to define them are "spooks," and don't apply to anyone unless they so desire.

Socrates said it best.

You shouldn't follow the law out of fear of punishment, but out of recognition of the use it provides.

Therefore, in some contexts, I personally believe breaking a law isn't wrong.

However, neither is it necessarily right and you certainly should be willing to accept responsibility if challenged.

Taxes, for example, are paid to keep certain aspects of society running smoothly. If you try to evade taxes (which I will define as neither right nor wrong), do not be surprised if you are caught and given a heavy fine.

Murder, as another example, is made illegal such that there is an understanding that taking another life isn't acceptable. However, in some societies, there is also an understanding that killing in self-defence isn't murder.

And that's where the whole recognition part comes in. If you witness that making murder illegal is providing no use (as in, some madmen is shooting everyone), then applying lethal force, however much against the law, could in fact be of more use than the law.

But meh, it's bound to be an answer filled with paradoxes, conflicts and many varying situations.

Bottom-line is: Be prepared to take responsibility for your actions.

Law is just one numerous and more powerful section of society imposing their will on another. But most of the time it works out pretty well and I think society's mostly better for it. The majority of laws are quite sensible and serve to protect people. As long as the law doesn't go despotic I think it's mostly a good thing. To be honest, I don't think perceptions of legitimacy matter. As long as the law can be enforced and is accepted by most of the population, that's basically all that matters.

A small, irrelevant part of those societies that has hijacked the avenues of coercive mechanisms (police, army, courts... whatnot, and first and foremost parliaments of the so-called "states", i.e. "countries") makes these laws at their whim.

Then the basis for political obedience to those states is very weak indeed.

But there remains the possibility, in another sort of society, for law that would genuinely compel obedience on moral grounds.

People are born into "states" in which "laws" exist and that means that you do not enter any contracts (which would imply volition, individual judgment etc.), but are put in the cage of these enorceable norms.

The social contract is not a literal contract. It is, in essence, a matter of reciprocity. I would not be willing to accept others resolving conflicts with me on partial bases, and so I too must be willing to not settle conflicts with others on partial bases. Instead, we both turn to an impartial authority that takes into account the interests of everyone.

This derivation of political obedience can be moral ("Knowing my biases, I cannot set the rules and make the judgments for conflicts in which I am involved, because I would not be willing to accept such a judge if it were someone else ruling over and judging me") or merely prudent ("I recognize that I must give up the right to set the rules and make the judgments for conflicts in which I am involved so as to get others to do the same, which is in my interest.")

I'm wondering what people here think of the term "law". Many US conservatives here for example bring it up in relation to immigration and illegal immigrants. To many here speeding on public roads is bad, and the number one argument is "it's against the law".

Yet those same people would generally be okay with the protests in Burma right now, even though those guys are of course openly breaking the law. Of course, that's not a democracy. But the US had persecution of gays and racial discrimination enshrined by law, and just because Burma's junta is not democratic might not make it right in your view to ignore their law against murder.

So what is law, where does it come from, what makes it legitimate? How do you choose which laws to follow and which to ignore? How do you decide whether a law is right or wrong? If you think so, what is special about law that makes it more than simply someone with a gun telling you to do one thing and not do another?

It really all depends on your framework of thought regarding law. Typically their are two general concepts behind how law is thought of, and how it extends... Civil Law and Common Law...

In a Civil Law system legality is defined in its absolute by government only, it does not matter whether this "government" is authoritarian or democratic in nature. What passes the legislatures is the SUPREME law, and all other forms are subject to it.

Common Law is abit different, law extends from the government in one sense, and from the people in another. Common Law sees the people as possessing some inherent rights or power, and then law extends down from that in stages of lesser supremacy. This can be viewed in the US' system of law in the supremacy of the US Constitution (of the people), then lesser to legislative acts by the congress in primarily legislative acts and then its agreements with other nations (treaties).

I tend to prefer the concept of Common Law, since it recognizes rights being inherent to, and not extending from the people. It also prevents the concept of government itself having rights (only being granted powers [from the people]). It is less likely for the government to be able to oppress the people, and even in areas where it does, it is very likely for the system to be self-correcting over time to put an end to such oppression. It also means rights are not specific, but general, and rights that were not listed previously can be extrapolated from the basic tenets of common law (the whole Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness deal) over time (the concept of the Right to Privacy is an example of this in US Law).

Additionally I don't think all law can be automatically legitimate. Some laws can pass the congress which violate the higher law of rights extrapolated from the basic tenets of common law. Where this happens you end up with a conflict between the civil law element of common law governments, and the Common Law itself; in cases like this it is the duty of the people to overthrow these civil enactments by violation of this law so that it can be handed to the proper branch which addresses issues such as this (in the US this is the Judicial Branch)... The conflict with the anti-sodomy laws as found in certain states is a recent example of this... The enactment and enforcement of these laws violates pre-established principles of the Common Law, people violated it rights in recognition of its illigitimacy in law, and the Judiciary overturns the civil enactment, since it is against the "higher" law of the land in principle.

The purpose of law is to maximize justice. However, for various reasons some laws will not fulfill this purpose. These laws can and should be ignored. Just laws should be obeyed.

Then the basis for political obedience to those states is very weak indeed.

But there remains the possibility, in another sort of society, for law that would genuinely compel obedience on moral grounds.

Those states are all there is.

Do not mix states and societies, as they have little in common. Society is a living supra-individual, complex, ever changing, quasi-structured entity. States are rigid, petrified forms of pseudo-societal "manual mode". A society cannot exist without people and depends on different people's activities. A state most certainly can exist without people -- indeed be (as it historically has been on a few occasions) just a piece of paper with a seal in a safe that someone claims after 200 years.


The social contract is not a literal contract. It is, in essence, a matter of reciprocity. I would not be willing to accept others resolving conflicts with me on partial bases, and so I too must be willing to not settle conflicts with others on partial bases.

The first sentence is absolute nonsense. A contract is a contract. Else it would not be called "social contract" but "a social agrement", "a social construct" "a prejudice that most individuals function on reciprocity" etc. A social contract IS VERY MUCH a contract. Only "society" is not a social contract. Military truce is. A declared war is too -- however unwished for by most people.


Instead, we both turn to an impartial authority that takes into account the interests of everyone.

This is rather phantasmagoriac. There is no authority that takes into accounts the interests of everyone. Never been, never will be, not even in religious confabulations, let alone in political theory (I won't even touch politics in practice here).

This derivation of political obedience can be moral ("Knowing my biases, I cannot set the rules and make the judgments for conflicts in which I am involved, because I would not be willing to accept such a judge if it were someone else ruling over and judging me") or merely prudent ("I recognize that I must give up the right to set the rules and make the judgments for conflicts in which I am involved so as to get others to do the same, which is in my interest.")

Obviously you do not understand what I am saying, possibly because you are, again, assuming that "society" is a given with a fairly defined, not haphazard, and not easily changeable set of rules and that you are taking a stance towards such an "entity".

And I am telling you that it is none of it -- regardless of what you yourself choose to project onto your ideal (not in the sense of "perfect", but "imagined") society, because the imput of your force (in thinking so and acting upon it) is just a tiny particle in the resulting vector of an ever-fluctuating society.

Which, in its turn, has been hijacked by "the state".

Those states are all there is.

Yes, for now.

What is is not the same as what can be.

Do not mix states and societies, as they have little in common.

They are not the same... but the system of political organization in a society is part of that society, and inseparably connected to it.

The first sentence is absolute nonsense. A contract is a contract. Else it would not be called "social contract" but "a social agrement", "a social construct" "a prejudice that most individuals function on reciprocity" etc. A social contract IS VERY MUCH a contract.

Forgive me for using the usual term. It really doesn't matter what you prefer to call it.

There is no authority that takes into accounts the interests of everyone. Never been, never will be, not even in religious confabulations, let alone in political theory (I won't even touch politics in practice here).

Obviously not perfectly. The legitimacy of law is not a strict "yes/no" matter. It is a spectrum. Insofar as law impartially reflects the general will, the interests of everyone, we are obligated to respect it.

In a "perfect" society, this obligation would be strong, though still subject to the "egregiousness" condition I mentioned above. In a class society like ours, where inequity is the law of the land and the "good" pursued by the state tends to be the private good of a minority, this obligation is much weaker. In a society like, say, Nazi Germany, where even the liberal superstructure we enjoy has been abolished and the state is simply murderous and rapacious, without any veneer of legitimacy, this obligation is virtually nonexistent.

Obviously you do not understand what I am saying, possibly because you are, again, assuming that "society" is a given with a fairly defined, not haphazard, and not easily changeable set of rules and that you are taking a stance towards such an "entity".

I am not speaking of "society" in aggregate, but simply of political authority.

And I am telling you that it is none of it -- regardless of what you yourself choose to project onto your ideal (not in the sense of "perfect", but "imagined") society, because the imput of your force (in thinking so and acting upon it) is just a tiny particle in the resulting vector of an ever-fluctuating society.

Maybe from the perspective of society as a whole.

But the fact that our actions are dwarfed by the totality of everyone's actions does not mean that they do not have real, morally relevant consequences.

Those states are all there is.
The first sentence is absolute nonsense. A contract is a contract. Else it would not be called "social contract" but "a social agrement", "a social construct" "a prejudice that most individuals function on reciprocity" etc. A social contract IS VERY MUCH a contract. Only "society" is not a social contract. Military truce is. A declared war is too -- however unwished for by most people.


The "social contract" is a theory of government developed by John Locke and other political philosophers a long time ago. It states, basicaly, that the people have some inate rights, some of which they cede to the government in exchange for protection of others, security, stability, liberty, and/or other things. Usualy it is applied to the protection of liberty and most rights though. Under this theory, at least according to Locke, it is allowed for people to rise against a tryannous government, because the govenment has violated its end of the "contract".

Since then it has been applied to lots of different things and just about every revolution, including the American. So the concept named "social contract" is not an actual contract, but rather an idea which confuses people because of poor nomenclature (like too many other concept names out there).

I just thought I'd clear that up, as it seemed to be a point of miscommunication during the discussion.

*scampers in*
*pies everyone*
I am the law.
*scampers out*

The "social contract" is a theory of government developed by John Locke and other political philosophers a long time ago. It states, basicaly, that the people have some inate rights, some of which they cede to the government in exchange for protection of others, security, stability, liberty, and/or other things. Usualy it is applied to the protection of liberty and most rights though. Under this theory, at least according to Locke, it is allowed for people to rise against a tryannous government, because the govenment has violated its end of the "contract".

Since then it has been applied to lots of different things and just about every revolution, including the American. So the concept named "social contract" is not an actual contract, but rather an idea which confuses people because of poor nomenclature (like too many other concept names out there).

I just thought I'd clear that up, as it seemed to be a point of miscommunication during the discussion.



I know very well what Locke was saying, because I understand the Weltanschauung from which he writes. It seems, however, that you perhaps do not.

Yes, Locke did assume that people give up rights. And that indeed would be a genuine contract.

In times preceding Locke people did exactly that. One had to swear allegiance to his overlord. From a huge fief owner, to the smallest serf, from merchants guilds swearing oaths to the visiting emperor to navigators claiming lands on behalf of their sovereigns -- in whose personna the state was embodied, all entered a contract -- a genuine one.

However, people do not do that nowadays. Today the contractual aspect of what some still by innertia call "social contract" is lost. And that is exactly why the state may only have the "legitimacy" (from Latin "lex") to promulgate "laws" (from: French loi, which from Latin "lex"), which is like saying "gas is gaseous". Indeed it is. So ...?

Anyway, it's 3 AM here in China and I have to go, so I cannot elaborate further.

I know very well what Locke was saying, because I understand the Weltanschauung from which he writes. It seems, however, that you perhaps do not.

Yes, Locke did assume that people give up rights. And that indeed would be a genuine contract.

In times preceding Locke people did exactly that. One had to swear allegiance to his overlord. From a huge fief owner, to the smallest serf, from merchants guilds swearing oaths to the visiting emperor to navigators claiming lands on behalf of their sovereigns -- in whose personna the state was embodied, all entered a contract -- a genuine one.

However, people do not do that nowadays. Today the contractual aspect of what some still by innertia call "social contract" is lost. And that is exactly why the state may only have the "legitimacy" (from Latin "lex") to promulgate "laws" (from: French loi, which from Latin "lex"), which is like saying "gas is gaseous". Indeed it is. So ...?

Anyway, it's 3 AM here in China and I have to go, so I cannot elaborate further.

First off, I apologize if I offended you in any way, but my reason for posting is explained later.

Interesting, I had never heard that Locke thought every one would sign something to give up these rights. My not knowing this is unsuprising as my introduction to Locke consists of an AP euro course, an AP gov course, and the small constitution portion of an AP U.S. history course. Also, I can't read Weltanschauung (never even heard of it). The fact that I was wrong about the intricacies of Locke's ideas does not invalidate my overall intention in posting however.

The reason I posted was that you seemed to be unaware of the political concept in your arguement, now I understand that you were intentionaly ignoring the contemporary connotations to make a point. As you are doing with the Latin and French etomology and derivations. To use your example: not all gasses are very gaseous; in the earth's atmosphere heavy gases like Carbon Dioxide and Chlorine gas can be poured like liquids when unagitated. Thus they are gases that aren't very "gaseous". The same logic aplies to laws and legitimacy: Some laws, while by definition legitimate, may violate many peoples higher concepts of "legitimacy".

This is an interesting question! As I see it, the law is, by definition, legitimate. However, not all laws are just. We, as individuals don't have the right to decide which laws we follow. I might think the speed limit is dumb, but if I break it, the cops are justified in ticketing me. If a law IS unjust, the people should change it, not ignore it.

There might be some cases where breaking the law is morally justified. Back when slavery still existed, anyone who helped a slave escape was a criminal. But the real solution was to change the law, not break it (even though I probably would have broken that one myself).

I know very well what Locke was saying, because I understand the Weltanschauung from which he writes. It seems, however, that you perhaps do not.

Yes, Locke did assume that people give up rights. And that indeed would be a genuine contract.

Locke offered ways that people consent to give up some of their rights without an explicit agreement. Thus basically coming down to all people who voluntarily chooses to live within a society have implicitly or tacitly entered into its formative agreement, and thereby consented to submit themselves and their property to its governance. I'm quoting a website summarizing Locke's thoughts.

In times preceding Locke people did exactly that. One had to swear allegiance to his overlord. From a huge fief owner, to the smallest serf, from merchants guilds swearing oaths to the visiting emperor to navigators claiming lands on behalf of their sovereigns -- in whose personna the state was embodied, all entered a contract -- a genuine one.

This is not true. Generally people were not free to say no when the sovereign/lord of the manor/whoever asked for allegiance. If they didn't they were either conquered or beaten. Hardly genuine contracts.

If I follow a law, its either because I gain nothing from breaking it or am concerned the reaction if I break it would hurt me more than I gain from breaking the law.

Laws mean absolutely nothing to me. The consequences of what happens when I break that law are what matters, and how I decide which ones to follow.

There might be some cases where breaking the law is morally justified. Back when slavery still existed, anyone who helped a slave escape was a criminal. But the real solution was to change the law, not break it (even though I probably would have broken that one myself).

Many people say "If there is an unjust law, change it don't break it." I disagree. Rather say, "If there is an unjust law, work to change it, and continuously break it until that change comes."

You know, I've done (and will do) my share of speeding, but to try and paint that as Civil Disobedience is more than just a stretch...

and, for fun-
http://wiw.org/~jess/wp-uploads/cap5.gif

There might be some cases where breaking the law is morally justified. Back when slavery still existed, anyone who helped a slave escape was a criminal. But the real solution was to change the law, not break it (even though I probably would have broken that one myself).And in the meantime, what would happen to the slaves who were returned to their "masters"? How many would have been beaten to death?

To many here speeding on public roads is bad, and the number one argument is "it's against the law".

I would dispute this. I'm not American but I'd wager the majority of those against speeding are against it because of how dangerous it is. The faster you go the longer it takes to stop.

http://www.transport.qld.gov.au/resources/image/468e353415c42832/Stopping_distances_web_small.jpg

Common Law is abit different, law extends from the government in one sense, and from the people in another. Common Law sees the people as possessing some inherent rights or power, and then law extends down from that in stages of lesser supremacy. This can be viewed in the US' system of law in the supremacy of the US Constitution (of the people), then lesser to legislative acts by the congress in primarily legislative acts and then its agreements with other nations (treaties).

Common law is is legal system where the law is created by or refined by judges. Precedents are binding on future judicial decisions. There is nothing in Common Law that states there are inherent rights in man per se. Past decisions may be based on some, but that's superfluous to the Common Law legal system as a whole.

2. Common law legal systems as opposed to civil law legal systems: This connotation differentiates "common law" jurisdictions and legal systems from "civil law" or "code" jurisdictions. Common law systems place great weight on court decisions, which are considered "law" just as are statutes. By contrast, in civil law jurisdictions (the legal tradition that prevails in most of the world), judicial precedent is given less weight, and contributions by scholars are given more. For example, the Napoleonic code expressly forbade French judges from pronouncing the law.[2]

For a long time, in Common Law, married women gave up any control of property to their husbands.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coverture]

For a long time, in Common Law, married women gave up any control of property to their husbands.


They still do effectively, as Common Law now connoted Community Property in marriage. Both partners own property, all former individual property and debts becomes the debt and property of both partners equally and debts are permanate. Following both even if the marriage is disolved.

I would dispute this. I'm not American but I'd wager the majority of those against speeding are against it because of how dangerous it is. The faster you go the longer it takes to stop.
One has little to do with the other. You wouldn't argue that everyone should go 30 on a highway, even though it takes less distance to stop. And I don't see anyone arguing for Ferraris having higher speed limits than Fords, even though they can probably stop in half the distance.

For many, if not most, speed limits the only reason they exist is habit and the need by traffic authorities to justify their pensions.

Oh, and I'm not American either. Officially I'm a German citizen living in Australia.

So, have you ever broken a law? Have you ever gone faster than the speed limit? Had a drink before you were of legal age? Shoplifted? Had a fight with someone and hurt them? Cheated on a tax return?

Don't these laws matter? Do they matter to others who are willing to always obey them but not to you?

And the same could be asked from the other angle. If some politician runs over someone, but the police ends up dropping the case for political reasons (ie is unwilling to enforce the law), does that mean the law no longer matters?

Nope, nope, nope, nope, ect. The worst I ever did: I jaywalked once after waiting 10 minutes to determine the light was broken. To top it-off, there were no cars.

They still do effectively, as Common Law now connoted Community Property in marriage. Both partners own property, all former individual property and debts becomes the debt and property of both partners equally and debts are permanate. Following both even if the marriage is disolved.
Still, this was the first time I've heard anyone argue that the approach to rights differs fundamentally between civil and common law systems. Didn't the Romans have a conception of rights - civil law is based on their system.

And the German and French constitutions are pretty clear cut about people's rights.

http://www.iuscomp.org/gla/statutes/GG.htm#I
http://www.hrcr.org/docs/frenchdec.html

One has little to do with the other. You wouldn't argue that everyone should go 30 on a highway, even though it takes less distance to stop. And I don't see anyone arguing for Ferraris having higher speed limits than Fords, even though they can probably stop in half the distance.

For many, if not most, speed limits the only reason they exist is habit and the need by traffic authorities to justify their pensions.

Oh, and I'm not American either. Officially I'm a German citizen living in Australia.

30 on a highway? Of course not, but then again does that actually exist? I generally think speed limits, at least where I live, are good. But that isn't the point; the point is that people rally against speeding, in general, because they believe (rightly or wrongly) that speeding is dangerous.

The OP was using the claim that most people disagree with speeding simply because it is against the law, and used this to justify and explain his entire point. I don't accept the first claim and so I can't accept his main argument.

For many, if not most, speed limits the only reason they exist is habit and the need by traffic authorities to justify their pensions.

Huh? We're getting away from my point, but aren't they needed so people don't drive to fast and kill people? I don't see how you can argue speed limits are not actually entirely necessary.

Still, this was the first time I've heard anyone argue that the approach to rights differs fundamentally between civil and common law systems. Didn't the Romans have a conception of rights - civil law is based on their system.

And the German and French constitutions are pretty clear cut about people's rights.

http://www.iuscomp.org/gla/statutes/GG.htm#I
http://www.hrcr.org/docs/frenchdec.html

Well there is, in Civil the legislative body or its like is the only one capable of effecting laws... In Common Law the body politic can be made subject to judicial oversight in cases arrising between individuals or small groups and the government.

I think most people agree that speed limits are necessary. They just disagree on just what that limit should be. Someone mentioned 30 MPH on a highway? I think everyone would agree that that is ridiculous, unless there is major roadwork going on, or really crappy weather. However, 120 MPH through a residential area is equally stupid, regardless of how good a driver you are.

They still do effectively, as Common Law now connoted Community Property in marriage. Both partners own property, all former individual property and debts becomes the debt and property of both partners equally and debts are permanate. Following both even if the marriage is disolved.

Community property is not the same thing. For one thing, coveture bound only women. Community Property binds both parties equally. Also, in community property one can sign contracts without the others permission as long as it doesn't affect joint property, for example getting a job. In coverture a women needed her husband's permission to enter wage labor, had no legal control of jointly owned property other than what their husbands deigned to give them, and basically were more or less at her husbands mercy.

Go read some Cicero

But that isn't the point; the point is that people rally against speeding, in general, because they believe (rightly or wrongly) that speeding is dangerous.
I probably should have phrased the OP differently. Still, if you do some research, you'll find a wealth of evidence that speed in and for itself is rarely the cause of an accident, that the studies saying speed = likelihood of accident are bunk and that the best way to minimise accidents within a crowded urban area seems to be to have everyone going at the same speed, rather than the absolute value of it.

Of course that also implies that outside such a dense-traffic area, the benefits of speed limits are unlikely to outweigh the costs, are expensive to administer and unfair (since really the impact of a given speed varies widely between drivers, cars and conditions).

If you explain that to people, in my experience they do two things: they think of some hair-raisingly abstract scenario in which speed does cause an accident, or they resort to the debating equivalent of yelling for mum, that is "but it's the law". And this last point is the topic of the thread, so we should probably end the discussion of speed limits right there.

Well there is, in Civil the legislative body or its like is the only one capable of effecting laws... In Common Law the body politic can be made subject to judicial oversight in cases arrising between individuals or small groups and the government.
Are you saying that there is no judicial oversight in such cases in a civil law system?

There is nothing in a common law system that says judges, when they make law, consider any sort of human right, unless they're bound to do so by a Bill of Rights. The same is true in a civil law system, in which judges don't make laws, but are bound in their interpretation of law by a Bill of Rights, as well as the lawmaker of course not being able to pass laws that violate such a bill. The case of the German constitutional court shutting down a proposed law to allow the airforce to shoot down hijacked planes comes to mind.

Yes, for now.
What is is not the same as what can be.

I agree fully.

[...] the system of political organization in a society is part of that society, and inseparably connected to it.

The concept of a system of political organisation is your beloved social construct. States are not more related to those abstract so-called societies than to -- say -- chemical elements.

What is the state of the Knights of Malta which have "embassies" the world over, in equal rank with embassies of the US, China and Russia -- and the real state of Malta for that matter? Which society organises into a system that these represent? Which population is being born in the state of Vatican that has a railway station, a radio, an air company, but no maternity ward?

The legitimacy of law is not a strict "yes/no" matter. It is a spectrum. Insofar as law impartially reflects the general will, the interests of everyone, we are obligated to respect it.

In a "perfect" society, this obligation would be strong, though still subject to the "egregiousness" condition I mentioned above. In a class society like ours, where inequity is the law of the land and the "good" pursued by the state tends to be the private good of a minority, this obligation is much weaker. In a society like, say, Nazi Germany, where even the liberal superstructure we enjoy has been abolished and the state is simply murderous and rapacious, without any veneer of legitimacy, this obligation is virtually nonexistent.

OK, since you repeatedly imply that it is possible that "law impartially reflects [...]the interests of everyone", I want you to quote me an example in human history. ONE single example of such body of legislation will suffice and you may even go to specific branches of law (but not to a single bylaw in civil code legal systems).

I give you the leeway in defining "human" to go as far back as Lucy, the Ape-Eve from the hills of East Africa. I say that law NEVER represents the interests of more than 40%, and it usually is about 15% of individuals who reside in a territory (you would possibly call that phenomenon "society" in a "state").


I am not speaking of "society" in aggregate, but simply of political authority.
[...]
But the fact that our actions are dwarfed by the totality of everyone's actions does not mean that they do not have real, morally relevant consequences.

But "society" only is an aggregate of its smallest units (individual people). They pull in different directions, and in every given moment the position and the direction of society is dependent on those inner forces resulting in a final vector. If parts pull in exactly opposing directions (as is happenning more and more the world over with votes won at 50.5%) then we have stagnation in every regard.

As for the butterfly effect defined moral highground, i.e. purporting that -- say -- your choices will save the starving in Africa, I tend to disagree: your donation will end up in the pocket of the web master who organised charity donations. Equally will the embezzlement by a high ranking official have only consequenes insomuch as he will be dragged through mud in newspapers. But will he end up in jail? -- In more than half of all cases he will not, exactly because the embezzled money will get him the best lawyers, because law is only legitimate through itself, and not in relation to society (See etymology of "law" and "legitimate" I gave). Anyway...


First off, I apologize if I offended you in any way, but my reason for posting is explained later.

[...]
The reason I posted was that you seemed to be unaware of the political concept in your arguement, now I understand that you were intentionaly ignoring the contemporary connotations to make a point. As you are doing with the Latin and French etomology and derivations. To use your example: not all gasses are very gaseous; in the earth's atmosphere heavy gases like Carbon Dioxide and Chlorine gas can be poured like liquids when unagitated. Thus they are gases that aren't very "gaseous". The same logic aplies to laws and legitimacy: Some laws, while by definition legitimate, may violate many peoples higher concepts of "legitimacy".


No, you didn't offend me. But you did assume something, and in my case it was not true, and I repudiated it.

Ignoring contemporary connotations was not my intent per se, it happens to be the outcome on my insisting on the original meanings.

As for gas being non-gaseous, I would not agree. When carbon-dioxide and chlorine become liquids, they no longer are gas.

They are liquid chlorine/carbon-dioxide. Yes, these two are normally known to us as gas at normal temperatures, but gas is just a form in which they appear. As soon as they are no longer gas but liquid, they -- simply -- are not gas any more. Nevermind, let's not get too far from the original argument.




In times preceding Locke people did exactly that. One had to swear allegiance to his overlord. From a huge fief owner, to the smallest serf, from merchants guilds swearing oaths to the visiting emperor to navigators claiming lands on behalf of their sovereigns -- in whose personna the state was embodied, all entered a contract -- a genuine one.

This is not true. Generally people were not free to say no when the sovereign/lord of the manor/whoever asked for allegiance. If they didn't they were either conquered or beaten. Hardly genuine contracts.

No, it is the other way round: what you are saying is not true and what I said is true.

People always could refuse to enter into a contract. The emperor came to them, or they went to him on an appointed day. They could always choose not to do so and to move to a faraway city if they were serfs (only a very small portion of them was actually bound to the land and couldn't leave it without consent of the overlord) or swear allegiance to another powerful overlord warring with their previous one if they were petty gentry. Or indeed raise an army on their own and fight their previous overlord.

To raise that army, they would receive oaths of allegiance by people who would be joining the army. Allegiances, oaths -- contacts all around.

Yes, for now.
What is is not the same as what can be.

I agree fully.

[...] the system of political organization in a society is part of that society, and inseparably connected to it.

The concept of a system of political organisation is your beloved social construct. States are not more related to those abstract so-called societies than to -- say -- chemical elements.

What is the state of the Knights of Malta which have "embassies" the world over, in equal rank with embassies of the US, China and Russia -- and the real state of Malta for that matter? Which society organises into a system that these represent? Which population is being born in the state of Vatican that has a railway station, a radio, an air company, but no maternity ward?

The legitimacy of law is not a strict "yes/no" matter. It is a spectrum. Insofar as law impartially reflects the general will, the interests of everyone, we are obligated to respect it.

In a "perfect" society, this obligation would be strong, though still subject to the "egregiousness" condition I mentioned above. In a class society like ours, where inequity is the law of the land and the "good" pursued by the state tends to be the private good of a minority, this obligation is much weaker. In a society like, say, Nazi Germany, where even the liberal superstructure we enjoy has been abolished and the state is simply murderous and rapacious, without any veneer of legitimacy, this obligation is virtually nonexistent.

OK, since you repeatedly imply that it is possible that "law impartially reflects [...]the interests of everyone", I want you to quote me an example in human history. ONE single example of such body of legislation will suffice and you may even go to specific branches of law (but not to a single bylaw in civil code legal systems).

I give you the leeway in defining "human" to go as far back as Lucy, the Ape-Eve from the hills of East Africa. I say that law NEVER represents the interests of more than 40%, and it usually is about 15% of individuals who reside in a territory (you would possibly call that phenomenon "society" in a "state").


I am not speaking of "society" in aggregate, but simply of political authority.
[...]
But the fact that our actions are dwarfed by the totality of everyone's actions does not mean that they do not have real, morally relevant consequences.

But "society" only is an aggregate of its smallest units (individual people). They pull in different directions, and in every given moment the position and the direction of society is dependent on those inner forces resulting in a final vector. If parts pull in exactly opposing directions (as is happenning more and more the world over with votes won at 50.5%) then we have stagnation in every regard.

As for the butterfly effect defined moral highground, i.e. purporting that -- say -- your choices will save the starving in Africa, I tend to disagree: your donation will end up in the pocket of the web master who organised charity donations. Equally will the embezzlement by a high ranking official have only consequenes insomuch as he will be dragged through mud in newspapers. But will he end up in jail? -- In more than half of all cases he will not, exactly because the embezzled money will get him the best lawyers, because law is only legitimate through itself, and not in relation to society (See etymology of "law" and "legitimate" I gave). Anyway...

First off, I apologize if I offended you in any way, but my reason for posting is explained later.

[...]
The reason I posted was that you seemed to be unaware of the political concept in your arguement, now I understand that you were intentionaly ignoring the contemporary connotations to make a point. As you are doing with the Latin and French etomology and derivations. To use your example: not all gasses are very gaseous; in the earth's atmosphere heavy gases like Carbon Dioxide and Chlorine gas can be poured like liquids when unagitated. Thus they are gases that aren't very "gaseous". The same logic aplies to laws and legitimacy: Some laws, while by definition legitimate, may violate many peoples higher concepts of "legitimacy".


No, you didn't offend me. But you did assume something, and in my case it was not true, and I repudiated it.

Ignoring contemporary connotations was not my intent per se, it happens to be the outcome on my insisting on the original meanings.

As for gas being non-gaseous, I would not agree. When carbon-dioxide and chlorine become liquids, they no longer are gas.

They are liquid chlorine/carbon-dioxide. Yes, these two are normally known to us as gas at normal temperatures, but gas is just a form in which they appear. As soon as they are no longer gas but liquid, they -- simply -- are not gas any more. Nevermind, let's not get too far from the original argument.




In times preceding Locke people did exactly that. One had to swear allegiance to his overlord. From a huge fief owner, to the smallest serf, from merchants guilds swearing oaths to the visiting emperor to navigators claiming lands on behalf of their sovereigns -- in whose personna the state was embodied, all entered a contract -- a genuine one.

This is not true. Generally people were not free to say no when the sovereign/lord of the manor/whoever asked for allegiance. If they didn't they were either conquered or beaten. Hardly genuine contracts.

No, it is the other way round: what you are saying is not true and what I said is true.

People always could refuse to enter into a contract. The emperor came to them, or they went to him on an appointed day. They could always choose not to do so and to move to a faraway city if they were serfs (only a very small portion of them was actually bound to the land and couldn't leave it without consent of the overlord) or swear allegiance to another powerful overlord warring with their previous one if they were petty gentry. Or indeed raise an army on their own and fight their previous overlord.

To raise that army, they would receive oaths of allegiance by people who would be joining the army. Allegiances, oaths -- contacts all around.

I probably should have phrased the OP differently. Still, if you do some research, you'll find a wealth of evidence that speed in and for itself is rarely the cause of an accident, that the studies saying speed = likelihood of accident are bunk and that the best way to minimise accidents within a crowded urban area seems to be to have everyone going at the same speed, rather than the absolute value of it.

Of course that also implies that outside such a dense-traffic area, the benefits of speed limits are unlikely to outweigh the costs, are expensive to administer and unfair (since really the impact of a given speed varies widely between drivers, cars and conditions).

If you explain that to people, in my experience they do two things: they think of some hair-raisingly abstract scenario in which speed does cause an accident, or they resort to the debating equivalent of yelling for mum, that is "but it's the law". And this last point is the topic of the thread, so we should probably end the discussion of speed limits right there.


Don't you see that you made the argument for speed limits right there? You said, "everyone going the same speed."

There are two things-in a neighborhood, urban, rural, or suburb it seems almost too obvious that people would be restricted to speeds that allow them to react to non-traffic conditions such as pedestrians or whatever else can wander into traffic, or traffic conditions such as cars entering the roadway from stop.

On a corridor like I-5 in California cars share the road with trucks whose tires are not rated above 55 mph. In order to achieve what you admit is the safety condition, that "everyone goes the same speed" that speed has to be established. You also mention condition of cars, drivers, and conditions. As such you have to find what is essentially a minimum speed that can reasonably be achieved by the sum of the cars on the road. By setting the limit, to achieve everyone going the same speed, much higher than that minimum you have defeated what you just argued is the condition for safety because those cars (and trucks) cannot achieve that speed. Now we have what you admit is the unsafe condition, cars traveling at notably different speeds.

There might be small stretches of road where conditions are such that there is little to no chance of road hazards developing outside of traffic and visibility is such that slower vehicles would not themselves be a hazard, but those roads are few and far between. (Don't you have a 900-some mile road in Australia that doesn't have limits? I thought I read a Road & Track article where they took a 911 Turbo across it.)

EDIT: Some of those sentences are brutal, but I'm too tired to fix them, so...sorry.

The concept of a system of political organisation is your beloved social construct. States are not more related to those abstract so-called societies than to -- say -- chemical elements.
.

I'm not asking these questions to make any kind of point, but honestly because I don't know the answer.

Taking states and societies as separate sets, can there be correlation between the declared borders of a given state, and the physical distribution of a society?

After events like a civil war, will the resultant reshaping of states sometimes result in a mirrored fracturing in society?

Conversely, can a rupture or schism in a socity result in an event that will result in a similar rift in some state?

Do societies of given characteristics have a disproportionate likelihood of existing in temporal or physical proximity to the formation of states of a particular character?

Will a more homogenous society be more likely to exist at the same time and place as one kind of state rather than another?

Can dynamics within a society, motivated and sustained by a sufficient number of likeminded individuals, make deliberate effect upon a state, or can a state excercise power to make broad calculated changes in a society?

Also, if, at reaching some given age of majority, and individual was given the option of either actively agreeing to abide by laws, or else be compelled to leave, would that better satisfy the premise of a contract?

As to the failure of the law to represent the interests of a larger percentage of the populace, is part of the problem that some subset of the population will be more adept at placing and manipulating the law, and will thus subsume its benefits?

Of the 15% to 40% range of population being represented, what factors push the percentage toward the 40%? Are places with higher literacy or more formal education more likely to have a larger portion of the group fairly served, or less? Has the overall trend with time been towards better representation by the law, or more narrow benefit?

Will the ability of the law to serve the highest percentage of the population depend on the cultural, traditional or economic makeup of that population?

Sorry about so much, I appreciate any answers you're inclined to give.

If you explain that to people, in my experience they do two things: they think of some hair-raisingly abstract scenario in which speed does cause an accident, or they resort to the debating equivalent of yelling for mum, that is "but it's the law". And this last point is the topic of the thread, so we should probably end the discussion of speed limits right there.
The legitimacy of speed limits does come from safety considerations. Speed does not cause accidents but it is a major factor in determining how much damage accidents cause.

Speed also determines your ability to avoid an accident. Breaking distance is everything when a kid runs out on the road on the way home from school or a moose does it in a forest or a car runs a red light at a crossroads or any other obstacle appears in front of you. The obstacle causes the accident but speed determines if you are able to stop in time to avoid the accident. You can't call this hair-raisingly abstract as it covers a lot of scenarios and among those wildlife crossing the road which is a common cause of accidents.

The speed limit in school zones used to be the same all the time here. People kept the limit when there where kids in school because they where worried one of them might run out on the road but kept speeding when there where no kids around because there was nothing to worry about. Now the speed limit in school zones is higher when there are no kids in school because there was no legitimate reason for it to be so low all the time.

No, it is the other way round: what you are saying is not true and what I said is true.

People always could refuse to enter into a contract. The emperor came to them, or they went to him on an appointed day. They could always choose not to do so and to move to a faraway city if they were serfs (only a very small portion of them was actually bound to the land and couldn't leave it without consent of the overlord) or swear allegiance to another powerful overlord warring with their previous one if they were petty gentry. Or indeed raise an army on their own and fight their previous overlord.

To raise that army, they would receive oaths of allegiance by people who would be joining the army. Allegiances, oaths -- contacts all around.

People couldn't stay and keep their property. For someone to say that that is a legitmate contract one would have to believe that the emperor or overlord had legitimate claim over that land. This when the overlord/emperor/king/noble or whoever got the land through conquest, ie theft, at least if one goes far back enough.

Also, your reasoning supports implicit consent to a social contract. If you don't agree with the government's action move to another juridiction.

What is the state of the Knights of Malta which have "embassies" the world over, in equal rank with embassies of the US, China and Russia -- and the real state of Malta for that matter? Which society organises into a system that these represent? Which population is being born in the state of Vatican that has a railway station, a radio, an air company, but no maternity ward?

I fail to see the relevance of any of that.

OK, since you repeatedly imply that it is possible that "law impartially reflects [...]the interests of everyone", I want you to quote me an example in human history. ONE single example of such body of legislation will suffice and you may even go to specific branches of law (but not to a single bylaw in civil code legal systems).

I refer merely to "possibility."

Under a truly democratic political system, in which the population is actively engaged in decisionmaking and with a constitution liberal enough to guarantee a substantive degree of equality under law, something close to this can be achieved.

Even if it cannot, it remains an ideal to which present systems can be compared... if nothing else than to show why we need not grant much of an obligation to political obedience in the actual cases existing for us in the real world.

I say that law NEVER represents the interests of more than 40%

Maybe... but there is still a difference between 40% and 1%, or 0.1%.

And generally even if law does not represent the interests of everyone equally or impartially, the other 60% are not entirely discounted.

But "society" only is an aggregate of its smallest units (individual people).

So?

(as is happenning more and more the world over with votes won at 50.5%)

This too is completely irrelevant, but for what it's worth this result has nothing to do with "equal numbers of people pulling in opposite directions" and everything to do with the way democratic politics works.

The positions of the political parties are not constants.

I'd argue that any law governing a body of people who haven't, one & all, given their explicit consent, is illigitimate. I think the trap all of us plunge in, is that instead of rejecting all such laws, we only reject the one or two we're really bothered by, personally.

As long as we do that, we'll never live as free individuals, because we cannot associate freely and thus cannot consent or dissent in any meaningful way.

Disclaimer: yes, I'm still drugged half senseless. Sorry NL, I'd find another victim but I can't talk so you're it for today.

Don't you see that you made the argument for speed limits right there? You said, "everyone going the same speed."
That doesn't mean "create some arbitrary maximum and punish only those who exceed it", does it?

Maybe a recommended speed would be a better option? Or a band that also includes people being punished for going too slowly?

As such you have to find what is essentially a minimum speed that can reasonably be achieved by the sum of the cars on the road. By setting the limit, to achieve everyone going the same speed, much higher than that minimum you have defeated what you just argued is the condition for safety because those cars (and trucks) cannot achieve that speed.
So if someone starts driving a ride-own lawn mower, we set the speed at 10mph? Or do we just not allow the vehicle that can't go a certain speed...

(Don't you have a 900-some mile road in Australia that doesn't have limits? I thought I read a Road & Track article where they took a 911 Turbo across it.)
Used to. Guess what they did to it...

I'd argue that any law governing a body of people who haven't, one & all, given their explicit consent, is illigitimate. I think the trap all of us plunge in, is that instead of rejecting all such laws, we only reject the one or two we're really bothered by, personally..

That's a tough standard for any law to meet, since its possible that even the most well-drafted law will still have some dissenters. Even sound ideas will still have some who are contrarian, sometimes simply by nature. Even some affable folks will dispute a law if they don't understand it, and there will always be some without the acumen to evaluate laws (for example, I don't know enough about chemistry or biology to really evaluate some environmental laws).

So, if even one person can nullify a law by withdrawing their consent, I'm concerned that every statute would be nullified.

Now if, instead of requiring consent from "one and all", we expected and demanded consent from some reasonable majority, and have that majority further restricted and tempered by some sort of foundational limitations on the powers of the majority, that might leave room for at least some laws to stand.

What is the state of the Knights of Malta which have "embassies" the world over, in equal rank with embassies of the US, China and Russia -- and the real state of Malta for that matter? Which society organises into a system that these represent? Which population is being born in the state of Vatican that has a railway station, a radio, an air company, but no maternity ward?
I fail to see the relevance of any of that.
The relevance is that Knights of Malta and the Vatican are without a doubt states but equally obviously not societies.


OK, since you repeatedly imply that it is possible that "law impartially reflects [...]the interests of everyone", I want you to quote me an example in human history. ONE single example of such body of legislation will suffice and you may even go to specific branches of law (but not to a single bylaw in civil code legal systems).
I refer merely to "possibility."
No, you did not; you were speaking in absolute terms of what law is and is not.

Under a truly democratic political system, in which the population is actively engaged in decisionmaking and with a constitution liberal enough to guarantee a substantive degree of equality under law, something close to this can be achieved.

Even if it cannot, it remains an ideal to which present systems can be compared... if nothing else than to show why we need not grant much of an obligation to political obedience in the actual cases existing for us in the real world.

It cannot and while it might remain an ideal it is an ideal for a small number of people who can afford to waste away their days in confabulating oputcomes of utopias instead of doing hard work for their daily bread and butter. The latter most certainly do not aspire to introduce "democarcies" -- and by the way, which democracy do you have in mind? Quasi-absolute, right from the cradle at the Acropolis, with all adult males only if born in the city of Athens at the agora, but with foreign born males, women, slaves and youth excluded? Or perhaps representative (which is always debilitated by the election system which is never fair (when did the women get the right to vote, again? Blacks? Black women?)


I say that law NEVER represents the interests of more than 40%
Maybe... but there is still a difference between 40% and 1%, or 0.1%.

And generally even if law does not represent the interests of everyone equally or impartially, the other 60% are not entirely discounted.
Yes, makes me thing of people who are only 40% HIV+, or have just 50% tuberculosis, or are 25% pregnant...

Besides, it was you yourself who claimed that the laws purportedly are there for "societies". Are "societies" in your world composed of 40% privileged and 60%-are-less-that-99%-nonrepresented ones?


But "society" only is an aggregate of its smallest units (individual people).
So?
So societies cannot possess any qualities that are not present in a sufficient number (critical mass) of those individuals.


(as is happenning more and more the world over with votes won at 50.5%)
This too is completely irrelevant, but for what it's worth this result has nothing to do with "equal numbers of people pulling in opposite directions" and everything to do with the way democratic politics works.

The positions of the political parties are not constants.
True, the position of political parties are not constant, but also the American bipolar system is not the only one. The fact is that a great part of the world -- and that is what I insisted on -- has had their elections won with between 0.8% and 6% over the opponent in recent years.

That does not give genuine legitimacy and shows that populations in territories claimed by so-called "states" ("states" call them "citizens") are split in half and indeed confronted on most issues of "societies".

Anyway... it's getting boring. I have better things to do than to go on about this. I only agree with you that the fact that something doesn't exist today doesn't necessarily preclude the future. But while you are enthusiastic about the future, and sometimes outright optimistic, I -- even though I am not pessimistic -- am very much full of doubt and cynical. Perhaps I am quite older than you.

I do, however, allow for the possibility that humans advance at some point in time, if the planet allows them to survive long enough after what has been done to it.

The relevance is that Knights of Malta and the Vatican are without a doubt states but equally obviously not societies.

Again, so?

The question was about political authority in societies, and in what circumstances we have an obligation to obey its dictates.

No, you did not; you were speaking in absolute terms of what law is and is not.

What of it? I was speaking in hypotheticals: if political authority has a certain character, then we have a certain kind of obligation to obey its dictates.

Whether or not political authority is ever likely to have that character is immaterial.

It cannot and while it might remain an ideal it is an ideal for a small number of people who can afford to waste away their days in confabulating oputcomes of utopias instead of doing hard work for their daily bread and butter.

I fail to see any reason to believe that... indeed, if anything those who "can afford to waste their times in confabulating outcomes of utopias" are much more inclined to support governments where people like them lead, and are rather suspicious of egalitarian democracy.

and by the way, which democracy do you have in mind?

By "democracy" I mean the substantive engagement of the public (all the public--I would include non-citizen residents in that) in making policy. The specific political form is irrelevant except insofar as it affects that.

Yes, makes me thing of people who are only 40% HIV+, or have just 50% tuberculosis, or are 25% pregnant...

Obviously there are some cases where there is no "in between." It does not follow that there are none where there is such a thing.

Besides, it was you yourself who claimed that the laws purportedly are there for "societies". Are "societies" in your world composed of 40% privileged and 60%-are-less-that-99%-nonrepresented ones?

You clearly do not grasp the concept of a spectrum.

So societies cannot possess any qualities that are not present in a sufficient number (critical mass) of those individuals.

Again, so?

True, the position of political parties are not constant, but also the American bipolar system is not the only one. The fact is that a great part of the world -- and that is what I insisted on -- has had their elections won with between 0.8% and 6% over the opponent in recent years.

Yes, and the reasons for that are still embedded in the way democratic politics works.

Whoever wins the voters in the center tends to win.

That does not give genuine legitimacy

Yes, it does, because the policy of the victor is determined by the people it must hold to remain in power: those in the center, the policies that (tend to) have the broadest support (or at least serve as a reasonable compromise.)

and shows that populations in territories claimed by so-called "states" ("states" call them "citizens") are split in half and indeed confronted on most issues of "societies".

Not if the positions of the major parties are very close to one another, no.

But while you are enthusiastic about the future, and sometimes outright optimistic

Um, I'm not even remotely either.

I was simply advancing an argument about the notion of political obedience in abstract: what conceivable systems of political authority we would be obligated to obey.

My only intention in stressing the distinction between what is and what is possible was to point out that simply because existing states may not meet the requirements of legitimate political authority does not mean that no political authority ever conceivably could... not to express a hope that such a society is ever likely to arise.

Again, so?

The question was about political authority in societies, and in what circumstances we have an obligation to obey its dictates.

What of it? I was speaking in hypotheticals: if political authority has a certain character, then we have a certain kind of obligation to obey its dictates.

Whether or not political authority is ever likely to have that character is immaterial.

I fail to see any reason to believe that... indeed, if anything those who "can afford to waste their times in confabulating outcomes of utopias" are much more inclined to support governments where people like them lead, and are rather suspicious of egalitarian democracy.

By "democracy" I mean the substantive engagement of the public (all the public--I would include non-citizen residents in that) in making policy. The specific political form is irrelevant except insofar as it affects that.

Obviously there are some cases where there is no "in between." It does not follow that there are none where there is such a thing.

You clearly do not grasp the concept of a spectrum.

Again, so?

Yes, and the reasons for that are still embedded in the way democratic politics works.

Whoever wins the voters in the center tends to win.

Yes, it does, because the policy of the victor is determined by the people it must hold to remain in power: those in the center, the policies that (tend to) have the broadest support (or at least serve as a reasonable compromise.)

Not if the positions of the major parties are very close to one another, no.

Um, I'm not even remotely either.

I was simply advancing an argument about the notion of political obedience in abstract: what conceivable systems of political authority we would be obligated to obey.

My only intention in stressing the distinction between what is and what is possible was to point out that simply because existing states may not meet the requirements of legitimate political authority does not mean that no political authority ever conceivably could... not to express a hope that such a society is ever likely to arise.

Ok, as I said, this is getting boring. I'll recapitulate once again the points I have made and which you either fail to grasp or refuse to recognisxe as facts, even though they are very much that.

1. A state and society are quite distinct, exist separate from each other in time, occasionally in space (governments in exile) etc.

Moreover I was responding to you, not answering the original question that you now purport implicitly acknowledges an alleged state-society liaison (which, I repeat, does not exist).

2. Democracy is a falacy. The fact that you trample your feet and say it "should be" this and that, but -- you admit reluctantly -- it is not (only you add "yet") will not make democracy come to being. It has never existed and never will.

That is why I specifically quoted forms of "democracies" -- some purported and some even generally recognised (by dupes?) as such -- in the past and asked you which of them you had in mind. You give an elusive half- -- nay, quarter-answer -- of what you envision, but it has proven to be impossible so far.

3. There is no "center". Everybody is the center.

Accidental momentaneous "societies" -- because societies are ever changing with death of some members, coming of age of others, births, influx of immigrants, some residents leaving etc. -- are just a result, a vector of the opposing, or difuse, forces executed by indiviuals pulling in the direction they want to go to. Nothing more. Never a given. Everything is in a flux, and therefore there are no set categories.

---

4. (Well, a kind of)

Eventually you introduce "the spectrum" now, and have the audacity to claim that I do not understand it.

Obviously it is just the other way round: you failed to understand that it was I who was insisting on the spectrum all the time, indeed it is the basis of my argument, while you were speaking in general black and white categories of what is and what is not, unable to grasp the shades of gray. It was you who first was speaking of "everybody", and "law this and law that", and I was saying: hey, hello, NOT for everybody. The spectrum is broader.

Anyway, you are less annoying than other discussants here -- not offensive on purpose and educated to a degree that makes talking to you less of a necessity to spell everything out word by word, as I must do with most kids on this and similar boards -- but you have exhausted my interest in this topic. I do not wish to repeat myself.

I have said everything there is to be said and you can either read it carefully, think about it and agree with it, or you can put your armour of pre-conceived notions and claim that what I say is not valid for you.

Honestly, it's all the same to me. If you want to discuss some other topic, I'll be glad to.

2. Democracy is a falacy. The fact that you trample your feet and say it "should be" this and that, but -- you admit reluctantly -- it is not (only you add "yet") will not make democracy come to being. It has never existed and never will.



Is it some primal characteristic of people that would make democracy impossible in perpetuity?

In some distant time or place, are there no conditions or collective mentalities that could allow for it?

you now purport implicitly acknowledges an alleged state-society liaison

Actually, it does nothing of the sort. It is simply asking about political obedience in that context.

A state without a society has no one who needs obey.

2. Democracy is a falacy. The fact that you trample your feet and say it "should be" this and that, but -- you admit reluctantly -- it is not (only you add "yet") will not make democracy come to being. It has never existed and never will.

You accuse me of not grasping what you are saying, yet you stubbornly refuse to acknowledge the simple fact that this is irrelevant to what I said.

Even if democracy were impossible, that would have no effect on the nature of the moral obligation to political obedience, which would still be strongest in a (hypothetical) democracy.

Accidental momentaneous "societies" -- because societies are ever changing with death of some members, coming of age of others, births, influx of immigrants, some residents leaving etc. -- are just a result, a vector of the opposing, or difuse, forces executed by indiviuals pulling in the direction they want to go to. Nothing more. Never a given. Everything is in a flux, and therefore there are no set categories.

Strangely enough, there still are different opinions about public policy, and some are more extreme than others.

Obviously it is just the other way round: you failed to understand that it was I who was insisting on the spectrum all the time, indeed it is the basis of my argument, while you were speaking in general black and white categories of what is and what is not, unable to grasp the shades of gray.

No, I wasn't.

If you read my first post on this thread, my phrasing is quite careful: I repeatedly say that the system is only legitimate insofar as it meets certain qualifications.

"Insofar" does not give us a yes or no answer, rather one that admits for degrees.

My replies to you were consistent with this understanding.

It was you who first was speaking of "everybody", and "law this and law that", and I was saying: hey, hello, NOT for everybody. The spectrum is broader.

I actually spoke of "everybody" and "impartiality" and the like as standards, not as descriptions of an actually-existing society.

As a matter of fact, I actually maintain, like you, that in certain ways it is impossible for a society to ever fully meet the criteria: for instance, governments will always make decisions that affect people in areas not under its jurisdiction, yet those people will never be equal citizens nor democratic participants of that government.

But unlike you, I recognize the distinction between the standard and the reality, and understand that the consequence of this is simply that civil disobedience always has a legitimacy to it when done in protection of those in other countries--not that the standard itself is somehow bad.

I have said everything there is to be said and you can either read it carefully, think about it and agree with it, or you can put your armour of pre-conceived notions and claim that what I say is not valid for you.

Have you ever considered that you might simply be wrong?

That doesn't mean "create some arbitrary maximum and punish only those who exceed it", does it?

Maybe a recommended speed would be a better option? Or a band that also includes people being punished for going too slowly?


So if someone starts driving a ride-own lawn mower, we set the speed at 10mph? Or do we just not allow the vehicle that can't go a certain speed...


Used to. Guess what they did to it...

There are minimum speeds, they aren't posted, but you bet your ass you can get a ticket for going below them without traffic restrictions. This is why you can't take a scooter on the freeway. To be freeway legal the vehicle must be able to achieve a certain speed. To be street legal, same thing. It's not arbitrary, that's why you can fight tickets if the road hasn't been surveyed in a certain amount of time, at least here in the US.

That's a tough standard for any law to meet, since its possible that even the most well-drafted law will still have some dissenters. Even sound ideas will still have some who are contrarian, sometimes simply by nature. Even some affable folks will dispute a law if they don't understand it, and there will always be some without the acumen to evaluate laws (for example, I don't know enough about chemistry or biology to really evaluate some environmental laws).I disagree. It requires two things; that people are allowed to associate freely, and that the people who choose to associate can agree on who is capable of consenting (so children and so on don't get disproportional influence). Assuming those prerequisites can be met, and I see no reason why they can't, the rest is a matter of democracy and free association. If you're capable of consenting, you've either already given it, give it by merging with a society, or you leave the society.So, if even one person can nullify a law by withdrawing their consent, I'm concerned that every statute would be nullified. If you've chosen to become part of such a society, you've consented to it's laws as well. Thus you can't commit murder and then cry "But I never agreed I should be locked away in a pit for the rest of my life for doing it". Quite obviously you did. Now if, instead of requiring consent from "one and all", we expected and demanded consent from some reasonable majority, and have that majority further restricted and tempered by some sort of foundational limitations on the powers of the majority, that might leave room for at least some laws to stand.This, on the other hand, effectively kills the autonomy of human beings. I can think of no greater crime. But I'm aware most people are content to be unfree.