Dear Bob,
Fascinating ideas, this message vastly improved an otherwise tedious
afternoon. Sending my mind off to some new and interesting places. The
idea that 'Created' law and 'Discovered' law are indicators of a country's
appeal as a habitable nation seems to stand up very well. I'm no
politician, however a few ideas in agreement with this comment came to mind.
I was thinking about the dynamic qualities of the law in the US. For
example the so called Megan's law,
following the 'discovery' of the danger to society when parents are not
aware of nearby lurking pedophile
predators. This seems to be a classic discovery example. And would this
law have ever come to pass if the
awful tragedy had not occurred? Would someone have come up with that law
abstractly? I doubt it. And
even if they had, would they have been able to generate the commitment and
energy needed to get it passed in the absence of such an appalling act?
Probably not. Society discovered a new danger and responded to it
with a new law. So not only can society not exist without law, law can not
advance without society's
support.
In the UK near the end of the Thatcher administration back in the late 80s,
a new tax law was inflicted on the populous requiring every person over the
age of 18 years to pay their local government a 'Poll Tax'. Previously
property and business owners paid a tax on their property to help finance
local government. In an attempt to expose inefficient, money-squandering
local government bureaucracies, the central government refused to subsidize
local administrations and forced them to fund themselves entirely from the
population of their constituencies. The government hoped that opposition
party constituencies (the alleged squanderers) would quickly be voted out of
control in favor of a more efficient, less expensive, conservative party
council. The overall result was people on one side of a street, in one
constituency paying 800 a year in Poll Tax, while people on the other side
of the street in another constituency paying 200 per year. Suddenly young
people where being charged on top of basic income tax (already well over 25%
of their income) simply to live and breath in a constituency, whether they
had property their or not, with a threat of imprisonment if they failed to
pay. The result of this law was violent riots in the streets, organized
groups refusing to pay such an unfair tax, imprisonment, social unrest,
indignation and ultimately the fall, not so much of the Thatcher government,
but of Thatcher herself. Ousted by her own party members in a vote of no
confidence. A great example of 'Created' law. Oppressive, disruptive and
ultimately self destructive.
This contribution is something of a knee-jerk reaction to your message Bob,
and I'm sure if I spend more time thinking and not typing, I could have come
up with some better examples to support your idea. However it
has lead me to one resounding thought. The nature of 'Created' law seems to
be of benefit largely to its
creator, whereas the nature of 'Discovered' law seems to usually benefit
society. And in biological terms is
therefore more likely to protect human survival within that social group.
Thanks for that particular journey of discovery
Neil
Bob Wallace wrote:
> After reading everyone's cogent analyses and criticisms, I gave them
> some more thought and decided that since obviously a country (society)
> and government are not the same thing, then are government and law the
> same thing?
> This makes things a bit simpler for me. Let's say law is an inherent
> part of society. Society cannot exist without it.
> But is law something that is created or discovered? That to me is an
> extremely important point. Seems to it is has to be discovered. If it's
> 'created' then it's anything rulers make it to be! Slavery's ok,
> genocide's ok!
> It's like the 'law of gravity.' It was discovered, not created. You
> just can't create a law that says "Ping-pong balls will now float."
> In this case, I put 'discovered' laws inherently in society. 'Created'
> laws--laws that mean anything--belong firmly in biology, since they can
> only be enforced through violence. Biological 'might makes right.'
> I thnk this explains why certain countries are much better to live in
> than others. The good countries have a tradition of 'discovered' law.
> The rest believe in 'created' law--whatever the rulers want. The
> 'created' laws in Nazism, Fascism and Communism led to who knows how
> many hundreds of millions dead.
> It seems that 'created' law leds ultimately to either of two
> things--tyranny or chaos. Hitler or Genghis Khan.
> If this is true, the conclusion I come to is that the purpose of
> intellectuals is to 'discover' law, which then advances society.
> Intellectuals who believe in 'created' law are the ones who make society
> go backward, since they destroy society and allow biological values to
> reign supreme. Then, again, there are only two courses; tyranny or
> chaos.
> Governments that believe in 'discovered' law exists in the level of
> society. Governments that believe in 'created' law exist in the level of
> biology.
> Every tyranny has its intellectual apologists and propagandists.
> Any comments?
>
> MOQ Online Homepage - http://www.moq.org
> Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
> Unsubscribe - http://www.moq.org/md/index.html
> MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
MOQ Online Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Unsubscribe - http://www.moq.org/md/index.html
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:59 BST