Define Law

[Preocupado]

Law = Written statement dictating acceptable/unacceptable behavior. Obviously, a law carries no real weight without proper enforcement.

My concept of a law or a rule won't go much further than that in politics too.

But my opinion on structuring social life with laws comes entirely from a subjective perspective, as in choosing to make concessions of your desires in a moment or situation, so you can brake those same rules furtherly, in a different situation.

If this further situation, where you brake those rules, makes up for your subjective concessions, then you can call it a functional law, or a law that you can live with.

So, the point of laws isn't simply breaking them or not. The point is, throught the laws, having a mechanism to make people able to choose theyr very own way of being part of society in a healthy way.

"Healthy" could be exchanged for "productive" or "peaceful", etc. That's where politics kick in with theyr objectives. Personally, i choose the word "healthy" because i believe in systems where the main objectives of human interaction are based on life and freedom.

[PsychoticAndInsomniac]

Originally Posted by RXP

Yah I know Hart and Kelsen, well a bit of Kelsen mostly from General Theory of Law and State and lecture notes. His grund norm idea turns me on so much tho. It's so fascinating. You know much of the two? Into jurisprudence?

But yeah I guess I need to be reading into Kelsen cause that's a big hole in my knowledge right now. You have any ideas on my actual question tho: a basically need to find a workable definition for 'law' and use it to analyse if utopias have law.

And yeah the rule of law i thankfully have already resarched so know where to look. My conclusion was that hte rule of law is basically wherever a soverigns power is curtailed and shouldn't be mixed up with any system (i.e. democracy).

I really don't know much about both authors. At the university we basically talked about the Grundnorm by Kelsen and Hart's rule of recognition, especially about Kelsen's theories. His idea that there is one rule above the rest that has to be respected by these inferior ones and that justifies the entire juridical system, although there isn't any rule that justifies the Grundnorm itself.

Regarding the concept of rule of law, we spoke about some specific characteristics, such as the division of power, the respect for fundamental rights or the legality of administration. However, it depends on the historical phase you take into account, i.e. liberal state or welfare state.

More difficult to me is to give a definition for law. Nevertheless, try to find out something about the differences between subjective and objective law, I think that would be quite helpful.

[ruroken]

Law: What fuckers try to use to control you.

[Conspiracy of One]

Law : bullshitty rules. That keep you safe from urself

[KappaWing]

You two really know how to derail a thread. And just when it was getting interesting, too.

[clokey43]

Originally Posted by RXP

Haha lay isn't clerks and stuff, that's pro.

Thanks for replying :-)

Ooops lol knew Ii was wrong lol, ok no waiting untill August 18th to see if i passed as law that pretty much confirmed a fail lol.

Happy to reply!

[RXP]

Originally Posted by PsychoticAndInsomniac

I really don't know much about both authors. At the university we basically talked about the Grundnorm by Kelsen and Hart's rule of recognition, especially about Kelsen's theories. His idea that there is one rule above the rest that has to be respected by these inferior ones and that justifies the entire juridical system, although there isn't any rule that justifies the Grundnorm itself.

Regarding the concept of rule of law, we spoke about some specific characteristics, such as the division of power, the respect for fundamental rights or the legality of administration. However, it depends on the historical phase you take into account, i.e. liberal state or welfare state.

More difficult to me is to give a definition for law. Nevertheless, try to find out something about the differences between subjective and objective law, I think that would be quite helpful.

I agree, Hart's rule of recognition and the grundnorm combined with the legal realist definitions I think are a working definition of law. Hart's/Kelsen is the abstract objective law. American realists are more the subjective subtantive defintion of law. I don't like Hart's primary and secondary rules because they are gay: primary rules don't exist in any society someone researched into tribal soceities and they ddin't even exist there. But his rule of recoginition is solid.

Oh and thanks for getting me thinking about the rule of law. I can spend a big chunk of my dissertation on a definitinon of the rule of law which was basically what my last essay was about so I have TONS of knowledge for it. Heh brain storming really does work.

[Norwegian Cat]

In politics and jurisprudence, it's a set of rules of conduct which mandate, proscribe or permit specified relationships among people and organizations, provide methods for ensuring the impartial treatment of such people and provide punishments for those who don't follow the established rules of conduct.

[PsychoticAndInsomniac]

Originally Posted by RXP

I agree, Hart's rule of recognition and the grundnorm combined with the legal realist definitions I think are a working definition of law. Hart's/Kelsen is the abstract objective law. American realists are more the subjective subtantive defintion of law. I don't like Hart's primary and secondary rules because they are gay: primary rules don't exist in any society someone researched into tribal soceities and they ddin't even exist there. But his rule of recoginition is solid.

You reminded me of the three basic conceptions of law (iusnaturalism, juridical positivism and juridical realism). They offer different views of law especially with regard to the law-morality connections.

Originally Posted by RXP

Oh and thanks for getting me thinking about the rule of law. I can spend a big chunk of my dissertation on a definitinon of the rule of law which was basically what my last essay was about so I have TONS of knowledge for it. Heh brain storming really does work.

You're welcome.

[RXP]

Originally Posted by PsychoticAndInsomniac

You reminded me of the three basic conceptions of law (iusnaturalism, juridical positivism and juridical realism). They offer different views of law especially with regard to the law-morality connections..

Yeah the law-morality debate is the natural law versus positivism. It's a rather gay debate. Extremely gay infact. And the attempts of fuller to divorce natural law from divine law are even worse and extremely stupid IMHO. I mean he argues that a 'just' regime full of just laws is internally more coheriant and better than a tyrannical regieme basically.