The Concept of Law; what is Law to you?

[font=verdana][color=green]Law is often associated with the State. That is how many people perceive the law, and undoubtedly how many people will continue to perceive the law. However, if I were to suggest that this very idea of law is a concept only, how would you reply?

The point is is that only within the last two centuries has this theory of law become the established "fact" for many of those in society. Many attach law to state imposed rules with threat of punishment if they do not adhere to the state law. This is due to the explosion of legal literature on a concept called "Legal Positivism"; which - simple put - theorises that law is merely a system which is devoid of morality and can only come from the state. Of course, this is highly simplified.

However, there are many systems of order throughout the world which don't adhere to this normal system. For example, many primitive tribes don't have the hierarchy that state law has or their law isn't codified in any documents. For them, law is something which is inherently attached to the society in which they live. Now, would you perceive this as law or merely agreements between members of their society?

This very idea has led rise to a relatively controversial theory called "Legal Pluralism". This deceptive simple theory suggests that in a single geo-political area there are multiple legal systems. This is at direct odds with legal positivism. At first glance, legal pluralism seems quite impossible and idealistic, as it might take systems which are not inherently legal, and then label them legal, giving them more validity than they should be granted. However, closer inspection reveals that this is actually existent in modern society, for example with sporting associations creating laws that everyone within the system has to obey, but still existing within the geo-political area in which they are based. Another example would be the Aboriginals in Australia; their law is readily accepted and codified into the Australian Legal system.

So, what do you believe law is? There is no wrong answer to this question.

As Oxford puts it



To me, laws are a kind of contract. I agree to not do X otherwise I face penalty Y. I feel they are mostly arbitrary rules imposed on us by a third party under threat of violence. I say arbitrary because all laws really come down to somebody wants to penalize a certain behavior and then someone with the ability to authorize the use of force agrees with them.

Without the person applying threats of force or violence the "law" has no weight. IF the Government can't use threats of force to deprive me of tax money. I certainly would not pay taxes on the things I don't use or disagree with.

A thing used to protect people, not to be abused by politicians and harm the people instead.

A set of guidelines/rules designed to keep people in check, and to prevent them from reverting to their true human nature by punishing those who go against these rules and to conform to a "guideline" to how society expects you to behave. Those with a history of breaking these rules, or as we call it "a criminal record" hinders their ability to do well in society depending on their "crimes", which is a double edged sword as the person it concerns may or may not repent their actions and continue doing as they did or clean up their act.

In short, it's so we don't kill each other.

[font=verdana][color=green]Hmm, it interests me that Oxford puts the term "community" in there. That definitely insinuates that Legal Pluralism does exist.

However, it appears that your concept of law is very narrow. In fact, if I had to liken you to an academic writer, it would be John Austin. So, just like with that one, I can criticise your stand point, thusly; what about power-conferring laws? In your view of law, it only really applies to criminal law, which makes up a small portion of what law is. It certainly doesn't apply to contract law, in which dominion over an item is transferred from one party to another. It doesn't apply to land law, in which dominion over a property is transferred from one party to another.

Also, you state that, without threats of violence, the law has no weight, how about situations where you have no intention of breaking the law? Just like with murder. Is that law prohibiting you from committing murder prohibiting you from committing murder due to the penalty or your own sense of right and wrong?



[font=verdana][color=green]Okay then, in reply to this point, I'd like to point out Nazi law. Yes, I know that it's not a great example, but technically it was law. It was codified correctly, all proper procedures adhered to and such, so it was law. So, how would you argue that this wasn't law to begin with?



[font=verdana][color=green]The thing that interested me most was the "reverting to their true human nature". My main concern is that, naturally speaking, human beings are already social creatures, so in most likelyhood we aren't nearly as savage as we were believe we were back then. In all honesty, with more wealth in the world, people are much more likely to become excessively greedy, and thus, display far more brutality and savagery than we ever would have committed back a few hundred years ago. Again, just like with FPoD, I'll say that your view of law is very narrow and doesn't take into account other areas of law like contract or land.

Lastly, do you not kill others due to the law or due to the fact that you know killing is wrong?

Law, they say, is a determinant for Right and Wrong.
Which is somewhat opposing my beliefs. For me, law is just a set of guidelines used to help
People live better, in harmony.
In my opinion, there is no right and wrong, it all depends on one's perception in it.

I view contracts in the same way a anrcho-capitalist would view them. We would use a third party to hold the goods until services are rendered. Failure to render services would warrant the return or repossession of those goods.



I lean towards Georgism in regards to land. I often debate with myself whether or not land can be owned in the sense that I own my PS3.



Traffic laws have no weight if I choose not to obey them (ignoring the threats of force by the Federal, State and local governments). Beyond that nothing stops me from speeding on the highway if I am so inclined. The threats of force are mainly the only consistent reason we have to not do something. Morality will generally shift depending on circumstances. A staunch "pro-lifer" might commit murder to save the life of another. I have to stop here otherwise I'll start meandering into a discussion on morality.



If you treat morality as law, then that "law". Then yes, it prohibits me because of my own moral code. In that sentence when I referred to "law" I speak of the rules imposed on us by a third party. The Federal tax code, holds no weight if they have no means to enforce it (threats of force). The U.S environmental regulations have no weight if they can't enforce them. So on, so forth.

When you get down to brass tacks, all laws are arbitrary. Subject to the whims of the person making the decision.

The law is


...that people will only obey if they want to.


("punishments" are made to make us want to obey the law, but if we don't want to obey the law, and no punishment exists/the punishment isn't enough, then the law won't be obeyed.)

Is there anything wrong with this definition?

Different individuals have different views off what's right and wrong. The law reflects what the people generally consider is right and wrong and imposes it on the few that disagrees. If a law completely goes against what the people want then that's a law that shouldn't be.

But this sadly isn't always the case of course...

"The Law" is the set of restrictions placed on a group of people by a higher power, be it government, God, respected family member(s), et cetera. It's not unlike the superego in that it suppresses things that are against personal convictions, but "The Law" is an external psychological force. There are those who "uphold The Law" through violence, apprehension, imprisonment, intimidation, et cetera, in order to prevent others from "breaking The Law." However, they are merely instruments of this psychological construct of an ultimate ruling, the idea that there should be consequences to actions outside of natural ones.

tl;dr- Might makes right. Law is a mental construct only.

I am an anarchist. [size=1]Gaze in awe, mouth agape, at my dazzling wordplay. But take heed! Stare too long, and you may be overwhelmed by the sheer magnitude of my ostensibly boundless vocabulary.[/h]

Law is defined to me as a set of transient common agreements made amongst people inhabiting a society. It's just a long term version of pop culture that focuses on morality, safety and definitions of what is and isn't acceptable to the majority.

Law is what is socially acceptable and unacceptable in everyday society.

Well, each person has their own desire and view. Based on occurrences and luck rules are made by someone based on his views and the rest follow. This is made to keep order and move forward in different aspects, to control, to satisfy some desire, to destroy, etc...The world is a big place, many wars were had for territories. Land was divided and rules were made following the desire the ones that had the ability to control, at that moment and place. As time goes by, these rules change based on who is in command and how the system incorporated works.

In this day and age this process isn't as volatile thanks to different treaties that were made for peace. But each country still has their own problems which are trying to solve, setting rules and ways to enforce them.

A life without law and rules, how would it be? It would be bizarre and full of chaos, that's why Law is invented, to keep it from chaos and destruction. Law is something enforced in order for society to be livable, that's my definition.

I see law as a system that keeps control but this control can be both good and bad.