>>> The point I was trying to make was a simple one, that you have to have a
>>> *theory* of what makes laws good and bad before condemning particular laws,
>>> not just say, for example, that taxation looks awfully like theft in some
>>> ways, *therefore* "taxation is theft". I'm not saying such moral critiques
>>> of the law can't be done...
>> Perhaps you or Daniel or someone would be so good as to explain how
>> anything other than that would appeal to people? Having implicitly
>> or explicitly a theory on which they base their criticism, is how
>> everyone proceeds that I've ever heard from.
> Lee, could you have another go at explaining what you're asking for. I
> honestly find the above a bit cryptic in the way it's expressed.
I meant to say, are there really people who don't agree that
"you have to have a *theory* of what makes laws good and bad
before condemning particular laws"? I mean, that just seems
so obvious. I sort of can't imagine what it would be like
for someone not to do that. But then, maybe I misunderstood
what Daniel was saying. Also, my question might be so lame
that it's not even wrong :-) If so, don't hesitate to say
so. Thanks anyway,
> -----Original Message-----
> From: email@example.com
> [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]On Behalf Of Russell Blackford
> Sent: Friday, July 27, 2001 4:44 PM
> To: email@example.com
> Subject: Re: Property and the Law
> Daniel said
> >I did not think you were a statist, though I did think you were a legal
> >positivist -- in my use of the term. (Perhaps my usage is a
> misinterpretation. I'll have to sleep on that.:)
> Well, I'd say I'm in the tradition of Hart and Raz, if that helps. I don't
> think either of them rules out moral critiques of the law - *I* certainly
> don't. While their views are highly complex, I think they'd essentially say
> that bad laws are (1) bad but (2) nonetheless laws. This strikes me as
> commonsense, but some natural law theorists would say that sufficiently bad
> laws are not laws at all, even if they have pretty compelling
> characteristics of legal norms such as appearing in
> the statute books.
> The point I was trying to make was a simple one, that you have to have a
> *theory* of what makes laws good and bad before condemning particular laws,
> not just say, for example, that taxation looks awfully like theft in some
> ways, *therefore* "taxation is theft". I'm not saying such moral critiques
> of the law can't be done, or that Jerry was necessarily making such an error
> as I just described. I just wanted to probe him a bit on what his theory
> was, including what political or legal philosophy he might have been using.
> He seems to be relying a lot on Ayn Rand. And he doesn't seem to have minded
> my gentle probing too much. (Right, Jerry? Jerry??) :-)
> >My point on political philosophy was not to belittle you (or anyone),
> but just to show that the answers you want might require a wider net than
> the one you are casting.
> Okay. Good to have that cleared up.
> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:39:58 MDT