From: Charles Hixson (charleshixsn@earthlink.net)
Date: Sat Mar 29 2003 - 18:14:06 MST
Lee Daniel Crocker wrote:
> ...
>
>Papers aren't laws. The constitution of the USSR guaranteed
>free speech on paper, but what do you think the law really was?
>Speak out, go to jail. The law is /by definition/ that which is
>backed with the threat of force. It's illegal for me to steal,
>not because somebody happened to write down a law against it, but
>because if I do, there is a realistic chance that I will be
>physically seized, tried, and imprisoned. It is written on paper
>that California residents can grow and use Marijuana for medical
>purposes. But the /law/ is that those who do risk arrest and
>prison on federal charges.
>...
>
That's a legitimate definition of law, but it's certainly not the only
one. I consider the constitution to be the law, despite the fact that
the current administration flouts it with appearant impunity. And note
that under that definition a bank robber who isn't caught or identified
could reasonably claim that he hadn't broken the law. He suffered no
ill consequences. Are you sure that this is the meaning that you want?
It seems to be enshining "don't get caught" as the primary basis of
what's legal.
Now, of course, historically in Anglo-Saxon law, the law was whatever
the King's friends (Lords of the land) felt like doing. This caused
unrest, so customary limits evolved. These came to bind the King also,
to King John's disgust. Which resulted in the Magna Charta, formalizing
those limits. Etc.
So our current laws are a mixed descent of power politics operating in
an environment of custom. And being able to get away with something
hasn't been considered to make something lawful... returning to a brute
level of power politics (which is what you seem to be asserting) is a
good receipe for social unrest. Laws are supposed to be formulations of
custom that limit the demands asserted by the powerful, while
acknowledging that they have special priviledges. This isn't what laws
have become, but that's what they are supposed to be. They are
attempting to become the cold iron prison for both the mind and the
body... which is what the powerful always want them to become (as it
makes their special priviledges even more desireable).
I consider the way that the word is commonly used to be no more
desireable than your proposed definition, though from the other side.
But you might want to think carefully on whether that is the society
that you want. There are still choices.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Mar 29 2003 - 18:19:27 MST