Responses to William Dwyer

William Dwyer wrote:
Anarchism, by contrast, is more appropriately defined by my definition, namely, the absence of a uniform law within the same geographical area. An anarchist, such as Michael Marotta, would presumably define it that way and argue that such a system need not result in civil unrest or warring conflict -- that different legal rules within the same geographical area could be adjudicated without violent conflict by peaceful arbitration.

That may be true, if people were willing to submit to peaceful arbitration, but if they were, then the result would indeed by a uniform law, because the respective parties to the arbitration would then agree to be bound by the decision of the arbitrator, which would then effectively become "the law if the land."

What happens, then when four people have two different transactions with two different problems, and take their differences to two different arbitrators?

What do you call that?

I ask because I do not see it as necessary that all agree to the same set of rules. As long as they agree among themselves, they can in each case have whatever rules they want.

I agree with your perhaps hidden premise, that in any place at any time, there will be a common culture. If the people in that society generally agree to peaceful settlement of any disagreements, there will be peace. If not, not.

Post 1

Wednesday, February 10, 2010 - 6:53am

Mike, why are you doing this? Why are you dragging members down here? Stop it!

Post 2

Wednesday, February 10, 2010 - 8:55am

I agree Teresa. This business of making a thread about a particular person is not appropriate. RoR is not a tool for Michael to attempt to stab at one person. And others, because of the thread title are implicitly not invited - also not appropriate. I did not like this when it was used against me, and on behalf of anarchy. I participated because I wanted to show how little substance or logic exists in arguments to support anarchy and to let people see the way an anarchist has to dance around and not answer the questions.

Post 3

Friday, February 12, 2010 - 4:30am

My God ... what have I started?!

Post 4

Friday, February 12, 2010 - 9:18am

Is what happens when ye spread legs and open Pandora's box - ye get family... [snort] ;-)

Post 5

Friday, February 12, 2010 - 7:06pm

Ed,

Frustration and clever humor was your excuse, but this doesn't make any sense at all.

I was waiting for, you, Steve, to say something about "your" thread, but when you readily engaged, I stayed quiet.

Trying to drag Bill down here was just too much dumb for me to handle.

Honestly, Mike. You're a really smart guy, but there's no need for this kind of thing. Make your arguments upstairs with the quotes you're taking issue with. Don't drag them down here like they're part of the dissent discussion. Geesh!

Post 6

Friday, February 12, 2010 - 8:20pm

Mike (and Bill), pardon me for failing to hold my tongue ...

*****************
What happens, then when four people have two different transactions with two different problems, and take their differences to two different arbitrators?

What do you call that?
*****************

Non-objective "justice", that's what. Here's a real-life example:

A woman in a civilized country takes her infant to the doctor for teething problems. The doctor prescribes some medication and the woman takes her kid home. But the doctor mis-prescribed the dose -- accidentally writing down the adult dose -- and the woman catches this and calls back and files a complaint resulting in a fine for the doctor (or whatever).

Another woman -- this time in an African tribe -- takes her teething infant to the (witch-)doctor. The "doctor" notices that the first tooth is coming in in the lower jaw (rather than the upper jaw), and declares something called "Mengee" and literally throws the baby out in the jungle to die (I saw this on The Discovery Channel). The woman cries to the elders in the tribe but they say that that is the law of the tribe.

What is the difference between these 2 scenarios? That's easy to answer. The first scenario has natural (objective) law based on individual rights, the second doesn't. The first scenario has justice, the second doesn't -- it merely has "mostly-wanted rules."

It's that simple.

You don't get to have whatever "rules" you want. That's what civilization "means" -- i.e., that there is one right way (and a million wrong ways) to have "rules". For law to be right, it need be a natural (objective) law based on natural (individual) rights.

*****************
I ask because I do not see it as necessary that all agree to the same set of rules. As long as they agree among themselves, they can in each case have whatever rules they want.
*****************

See above.

Ed
(Edited by Ed Thompson on 2/12, 8:26pm)

Post 7

Friday, February 12, 2010 - 8:41pm

The barbaric African superstition is called mingi and the name rhymes with thingy.

Note that natural law and objective law are two somewhat different things. Natural law is law based in reasoning from human nature, which should be universal and not based upon revelation, as is divine law.

Objective law is a system of principles of law with a proper epistemological base. Law must be well defined, principled, able to be understood beforehand, i.e., not ex post facto or based on arbitrary personal judgment, etc. Objective law is law treated as if it were a matter of science, not fashion.

An example of a potentially objective but not natural law might be one that clearly defines and punishes blasphemy. Such laws would obvious tend to be abandoned. But there would be objective means of defining them and deteremining "guilt" while they stood.

The two concepts obviously work together. But it is a good idea to distinguish them.

Post 8

Saturday, February 13, 2010 - 8:48am

Thanks, Ted.

As is usual, I came out of the gates on fire with a lot to say, but imperfectly so.

I agree with you that "natural" -- as in "natural law" or even as in "natural rights" -- should be defined as natural, rather than the customary way it has been defined (by "Natural Law theorists" -- as if it were rooted in the "supernatural"). It's odd that theologians co-opted the word "natural" in order to refer to the "supernatural!" That'd be like politicians inventing a phrase such as: "democratic capitalism" or "social justice" or "economic rights." All these are anti-concepts.

The problem, I believe, with the anarchical thinker is that, in throwing out these bad concepts of rights or of law, they toss it all into the hands of the market. A Spanish inquistitionist once said: "Kill them all, and let God sort them out" (to refer to those undeserving of getting murdered in the first place). The anarchical thinker says: "Wipe law clean, and let the Market sort it out" (to refer to the massive and perhaps pervasive injustice that will inevitably ensue upon such a proclamation).

Ed

Post 9

Saturday, February 13, 2010 - 9:26am

To further clarify, I think that the concepts of natural and objective law will largely overlap in their objects in the real world. What they differ in is what they are differentiated from. Natural law, again, is differentiated from divine or revealed law. The difference is mainly the metaphysical base. Objective law is differentiated from arbitrary law. The difference is in epistemology and methodology. (Of course divine law is also essentially arbitrary as well, when you get down to it, but as I said above one can try to enforce divine law objectively.)

One other thing. I wouldn't exactly say that there is only one proper system of law. Many issues are matters of convention. Should a jury have 12 people or 13, should the age of consent be 13 or 18 or 21, should the sentence for forcible rape be 10 years, or life, or death, and so forth. So long as those variables are reasonable and defined they can be just that, variables. Social context certainly matters. For instance, horse theft was a capital crime when a man without a horse might die of thirst. Nowadays its almost more of a civil than a criminal issue.

(Edited by Ted Keer on 2/13, 9:59am)

Post 10

Saturday, February 13, 2010 - 10:35am

Ted,

Social context certainly matters. For instance, horse theft was a capital crime when a man without a horse might die of thirst. Nowadays its almost more of a civil than a criminal issue.

Okay, and perhaps you won't disagree, but there was something metaphysical (rather than cultural) behind the severity of the crime of horse theft back then. It meant mens' lives. It was de facto "manslaughter." The laws have changed in order to accomodate the improved technology -- i.e., less reliance on a horse for locomotion, etc. -- but man's nature hasn't changed. We have changed the law to address the differing effects (of actions) on something that, itself, has remained the same.

In other words, we didn't need new law because we are "different" now -- but because circumstances are. There is still -- there was always -- a way to arrive at the best legislation for man on earth.

Ed

Post 11

Saturday, February 13, 2010 - 10:41am

(Warning... work in progress here. I liked what Ted wrote above and wanted to chew on the same concepts from some different perspectives)

"Natural" has a meaning that modifies "law" but the words together as a phrase, "natural law," also has special meaning that arises out of historical convention - a meaning that narrows the context still further. It is as if the phrase were a proper noun, but not quite.
-------------

The principles of physics are discovered laws. When one is distinguishing between divine/revealed laws and natural laws, one could say that the principles of physics are natural laws while the biblical story of creation is divine law. It is metaphysics and epistemology - the primacy of existence - reason to identify what exists versus the primacy of consciousness and the method of faith or whim.

But, I don't think the common usage of the phrase "natural law" would include that aspect of the laws of physics. The philosophy of science includes the primacy of existence and reason as the means of identification. Instead "natural law" would seem to be metaphysics and epistemology but only when underlying those moral principles related to governance of man.

Physics governs matter and energy. Natural law, from usage, would seem to apply only to man. Further, the common usage seem only interested in morals as applied to governance.

The statutes of Arizona, for example, are about governance of man. But if there is a moral base to a given law, it is implied and any mention would be in the philosophy of law. These Arizona statutes are manufactured laws (as opposed to discovered). They contain degrees of the arbitrary, such as when they describe the process for selecting a jury or how many will be on that jury.

Among those laws governing man's social contexts, some are best seen as moral (e.g., individual rights) while others are political (e.g., declaration of independence) and others are legal (e.g., Constitution). This differentiation is about where in the hierarchy of knowledge - at what level - is a given "law." This helps avoid the possible conflation between laws made by legislature and law of nature and natural law.

So, with the conventions of usage, with the differentiation from irrational (divine) and from the arbitrary or manufactured, natural law would be the discovered moral principles governing man.
------------

(These are more attempts to increase my clarity than to present finished thoughts.)

Post 12

Saturday, February 13, 2010 - 11:06am

Ed, I am still leery of the idea of the "best legislation." I would say that we probably agree on the same criteria to judge a system of law, that it should be objective and based on the idea of implimenting a practical system of protecting natural rights. But there is a broad range within 'legislation space' where different systems are all equally valid because they are equally adequate. What is important is not the units that are chosen, metric or English, but that, so long as they are practically useful, we stick to the ones we have chosen. The idea that there is a "best" way of legislation leads to the perfect becoming the enemy of the good, endless nitpicking preventing any issue from being settled, moving KSM from a perfectly valid and lawful military tribunal to a "better" (not really) trial in Manhattan Federal Court, and so forth. For human action to be "best" it also needs to be finite and come, at some point, to closure.

I am not attributing to you the opposite argument. But I think that fully adequate within a chosen margin of error is a much better concept of law than is "best."

Post 13

Monday, February 15, 2010 - 5:27am