Defining Law

[cambraceres]

[ QUOTE ]
Isn't there a difference between merely being a social outcast and being forced to conform or violently punished?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, not in effect.

[aeest400]

Lets start with an easier question: give a definition of "game" that incorporates all and only those things native speakers of english call "games." Once you have done this succesfully, we can move on to the definition of "law". After that, we can then show that legal decisions are deductively arrived at via a process where courts apply the meaning of words in statues or other documents (say the Constitution as "interpreted" circa 1789) to diffferent factual situations. The correct application of words, based on knowledge of their "true" meaning, then provides an objective criteria for evaluating the correctness of legal pronouncements. Then, issues like "can you put the ten commandments inside a state courthouse" can be decided simply by applying the true meaning of the constitution at the time is was written (or amended). It quite simple really, just ask Justice Scalia.

PS Your definition of "law" is dumb. Do you see why?

[morphball]

[ QUOTE ]
Lets start with an easier question: give a definition of "game" that incorporates all and only those things native speakers of english call "games." Once you have done this succesfully, we can move on to the definition of "law". After that, we can then show that legal decisions are deductively arrived at via a process where courts apply the meaning of words in statues or other documents (say the Constitution as "interpreted" circa 1789) to diffferent factual situations. The correct application of words, based on knowledge of their "true" meaning, then provides an objective criteria for evaluating the correctness of legal pronouncements. Then, issues like "can you put the ten commandments inside a state courthouse" can be decided simply by applying the true meaning of the constitution at the time is was written (or amended). It quite simple really, just ask Justice Scalia.

PS Your definition of "law" is dumb. Do you see why?

[/ QUOTE ]

What are you talking about?

[aeest400]

Don't waste your time trying to define law, there is no "definition."

Edit:

The rest of my post relates to folks, Scalia and Prof. John Woo (of the torture memo and other criems againt legal reasoning) are examples, who tend toward legal formalism, allowing then to mask their prejudices as "definitions" in the process of reaching unsound conclusions. The nature of definitions and meaning have been a big issue in philosophy and legal philosophy for the last 100 years. Enough so that just seeing someone trying to give a definition of law strikes me as somewhat absurd. The example of "game" is taken from Wittgenstein's Philosophical Investigations, where he dicusees the futility of any such enterprise.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't like the "violent force" part because arresting someone isn't violence

[/ QUOTE ]

[img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

Of course it is.

[Brainwalter]

[ QUOTE ]
Here's the definition I like:

The law is the rules that everyone in a jurisdiction must live by.

I don't like the "violent force" part because arresting someone isn't violence and most people don't fear violent force as a result of speeding tickets.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes they do, or they probably wouldn't pay them.

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't like the "violent force" part because arresting someone isn't violence and most people don't fear violent force as a result of speeding tickets.

[/ QUOTE ]

Its the threat of violence which underlies all police actions. If you deny this, you are denying reality. The only reason I'd pull over for a speeding ticket if I'm doing 68 mph quite safely on an open road with a posted 55 limit is because if I don't, I will face a police car following me with guns drawn. I don't pull over when I know I am no threat to any public safety just because I am a generous guy who wants to pay the state for doing no harm whatsoever to anybody.

And if you were honest with yourself, I think you'd realize that if there was no coercive force or repercussions whatsoever, you also wouldn't be compelled to submit to a speeding ticket in which you felt you were no threat to public safety.

[bkholdem]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't like the "violent force" part because arresting someone isn't violence and most people don't fear violent force as a result of speeding tickets.

[/ QUOTE ]

Its the threat of violence which underlies all police actions. If you deny this, you are denying reality. The only reason I'd pull over for a speeding ticket if I'm doing 68 mph quite safely on an open road with a posted 55 limit is because if I don't, I will face a police car following me with guns drawn. I don't pull over when I know I am no threat to any public safety just because I am a generous guy who wants to pay the state for doing no harm whatsoever to anybody.

And if you were honest with yourself, I think you'd realize that if there was no coercive force or repercussions whatsoever, you also wouldn't be compelled to submit to a speeding ticket in which you felt you were no threat to public safety.

[/ QUOTE ]

Or maybe he just police's himself and writes a check and mails it in regardless of if a police observes him speeding or not?